The Kingdom of the Antichrist

Eschatologists everywhere agree on one thing: the Antichrist and his kingdom are coming attractions. This seems ironical, to me. After all, aren't they already here; and in power? Haven't the Antichrist and his kingdom presumed central- banker- preeminence in the divine economy since long before the birth of Christ? What could be more antichrist than to butcher the Christ and hang him on a cross until dead? The only thing that could be more antichrist than Calvary is the abomination made of Christendom ever since: wherein the 'central bankers' and their proselytes declare murdering the "Prince of life" (Acts 3:15) is eternal life in the divine economy. Let's go back to the beginning.

In Genesis 4, Cain murders Able. This becomes the strange sacrament of an equally strange economy of divinity, as recorded in verse 24 of the same chapter, when Cain's great grandson says of his own adherence to the strange sacrament of murdering the young and innocent, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

The patriarch Abraham then makes this murderous sacrament the cornerstone belief of Judaism, in Genesis 22, when he unquestioningly submits to the compulsion of "that God" to offer his son Isaac as a whole burnt offering. Of this debacle, the apostle James writes, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2:21 & 22) James goes on, In verse 23, to declare Abe's murderous impulse was the fulfillment of the commendation written of him by Moses, In Genesis 15:6, that "he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." However, the LORD says of this, In Jeremiah 19:5, "[The children of Israel] have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind;" giving "that God" of Genesis 22:1 a name.

At any rate, this sacrament of murdering the young and innocent is perpetuated-- albeit with a facelift-- In the law of Moses, in which the children of Israel are commanded to offer a bare minimum of 1,074 lambs, 113 bullocks, 37 rams, and 30 kids of the goats per year. All of these beasts were offered as innocent babes: in the first year of their lives. This updated tradition begins with the original observance of Passover on the eve of the exodus of the children of Israel from Goshen. Of this observance, the LORD says, "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:" (Jeremiah 7:22) meaning they were, again, listening to a different God when they left Egypt than the one who called them out. [For more evidence of the errant nature of this first Passover observance, see my blog entry entitled 'Lies Preachers Tell #2.']

Ironically, in venerating the murder of Christ, the writer of Hebrews exposes the futility and fallacy of the belief that holocausting the innocent atones for the guilt of the wicked. In Hebrews 10:4, he writes, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Notice, he craftily omits lambs, but this is a device intended to rubber- stamp John Baptist's indictment of Christ as "the Lamb of God." (John 1:29) Again, In Hebrews 10:11, he writes, "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." If the slaughter of innocent victims doesn't atone for wrongs done by those bringing the sacrifices: Why would God-- whose handiwork these sacrifices are-- mandate their perdition? To believe he would is not foolish or sensible. It's wickedness. Two wrongs don't make a right: they do make more wrong than one wrong alone.

Ezekiel nails their hides to the wall, in chapter 18 of his prophecies. In verse 20, he writes, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:" which is to say: murder is not atonement. Verses 21 & 22 say, "But if the wicked will turn [repent, that is] from all his sins that he hath committed... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him... he shall live." Thus, Ezekiel properly identifies the utility of repentance as the only efficacious mechanism of atonement. By implication, therefore, we can extrapolate the following: Those who sacrifice another in payment for their own transgressions, do so that they might continue in their transgressions without repenting of them or suffering justice for them. This is the kingdom of Antichrist. What does this reasoning make of the sacraments and divine economy?

We who love God and live (as did Christ) to do his will are the sacraments; and God himself is the treasure and currency of the divine economy. For the riches of God we don't offer bread and wine. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Romans 14:17) We offer ourselves in subjection to his will. "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies [not someone else's] a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)

It's not the kingdom of the Antichrist that's coming. It's the kingdom of the Antichrist that's going. When it goes, the "this world" of scriptural notoriety will become that world which ended by it's own design. Instead of letting God have his way with them, they got their own way with God. Good riddance.