I’m currently browsing my way through Kim Riddlebarger’s new book, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist (2006). The main thrust of this book is a consideration of the concepts of 1. antichrist, 2. the beasts of Revelation and 3. Paul’s “man of lawlessness” (or sin). Riddlebarger has (so far) presented them within their separate contexts:
- John’s use of antichrist relates to the heretical doctrine of denying Christ’s actual life in the flesh. A real figure of Antichrist (big “A”) has been badly distorted by popular media, but is still a likely manifestation of the heresy.
- The beasts are political figures and states that oppress Christians; originally Nero or Domitian, but generally associated with any political figure that assumes deity.
- The “man of sin” is a true end-times figure who arises from within the community of believers – his appearance is being restrained by the angel of Revelation 20:1-3, i.e. until the end of the millennium when Satan is let loose for a short time.
Riddlebarger promises that the second half of the book will consider how these three themes have been viewed throughout history both individually and as an amalgamate figure of eschatological evil.
I’d previously read Riddlebarger’s book on Amillennialism and was impressed by his ability to express complex thoughts in accessible language. However, after reading a little more than half this book, I’m not sure I fully understood his full position before.
Riddlebarger holds a “modified idealist” interpretation of Revelation, which means that he’s a futurist who believes that the complete fulfillment of eschatological events is still to come. He holds tightly to symbolic language. As an amillennialist, he argues that the millennium represents the inter-advental period. He throws preterism, historicism and premillennial futurism under the bus with broad strokes, which is to say that if you’re looking for an honest critique of other eschatological views, this is not it.
I’ll write more when I’ve finished the book.
5 Comments
Just to throw a different view into things, I have written my thoughts ( free online) about who and what is the ant-christ from a scriptural view and historical view as well. I do not know anything about this book, but I would be interested in how the logic compares to what I wrote. Leave it to me to be different, I guess. Feel free to share your thoughts further.
thanks
marianne
http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/
http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/the-fouth-beast-of-daniel-and-revelation-the-antichrist/
Yeah, I wasn’t too impressed by his arguments against preterism in Case for Amillennialism. But I found that this arguments for Amillennialism itself was very good. I’ve been hesitant to pick this book up, I think I’ll wait to see if you review more of the book first. I don’t think I realized that he was an Idealist though. interesting.
Specific to Revelation, Riddlebarger has a series of sermons on his website that I’ve downloaded and have been meaning to go through. I can’t say I know much about Idealists, so it might be interesting, if not enlightening.
I took a quick look at the “series of sermons.” He is following the popular logic that it has to be the revived Roman empire that causes the problems. I propose that it is actually the revived Grecian empire, with the head having roman elements (teeth of iron). To me the beast is a hybrid, and the territory predicted is already a reality.
thanks
marianne
Thanks for stopping by and for the comments, Marianne. I’ve glanced through your document on Islam as the beast and will look forward to reviewing it in more detail.