The Human King

“6. What is the significance of the name ‘Son of Man,’ with which Christ designated Himself?

This name is also derived from the Old Testament, specifically from Daniel 7. After the description of the four world monarchies, portrayed by as many animals (a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a panther, a beast not mentioned by name), reference is made to one ‘who is like a son of man’ and who by the ‘Ancient of Days’ is given ‘dominion and honor and a kingdom that all peoples and nations and languages should honor him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed’ [Dan 7:13-14]. It is not subject to doubt that the Messiah is intended here, although not the Messiah by himself. Since the Son of Man comes to supercede the earlier world-kingdoms, he must be taken here, together with his kingdom and it subjects, as ruler over Israel representing his people. He is called a son of man because over against the wild and animal-like world-kingdoms he represents true humanity as it must be in God’s kingdom…he apparently wanted to counter the faulty conceptions that people had formed about the Messiah as an outward king. The kingdom in which He is Messiah and King is not according to the manner of the kingdoms of this world – which find their image in an animal-type, but it bears a human countenance…”

- Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Lexham Press), pgs. 17-18.

Every once in a while you come across something truly special in a Systematic Theology (even Louis Berkhof gets almost poetic at times). In this quote, Vos reminds us how important it is to know your Old Testament, and to let the O.T. inform our reading of the New. You will never understand the Book unless you read it as a whole, unified, connected Book.

The theme of “king” and “kingdom” are massively important to a right understanding of Jesus – I was reminded of that yesterday writing part of a sermon on the second petition of the “Lord’s Prayer.” Vos’ words underscore that for me.

Jesus is King of the heavens and the earth. In His Kingdom and in submission to Him as King, humanity will one day become what it was created to be.

While Vos doesn’t make this connection here, this commentary on the title “son of man” also informs us concerning the “beast” in the Revelation. All other kings and kingdoms are ultimately bestial (rebellious against God’s will) because they deviate from Christ.

(As a side note, this shows that Vos does his best Systematic Theology when he’s actually doing Biblical Theology.)

Sensational Misnomerism

“The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head of the Church, but he is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, who the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming” (1689 Baptist Confession, 26.4).

I am a Reformed Baptist, and the 1689 Baptist Confession is my confession of faith. I cannot abide by this one statement, but not for the reasons you think.

Antichrist is not to be confused with the Beast of Revelation. “Antichrist” is not mentioned in the Revelation at all, and the biblical attributes of both are not similar.

I think what you mean when you call the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church “antichrist” is actually “Babylon the whore.” I don’t make this connection – I believe Revelation’s whore to be A.D. 1^st century Jerusalem up to the point of its destruction: “...the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified [this can only be said about one "great city," and it's not Rome]...the great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath...the waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. The woman whom you saw is the great city...woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come...then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, ‘So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer’” (Revelation 11:8; 16:19; 17:15-18; 18:10,21).

Antichrist is a heretical doctrine found in the A.D. 1^st century, arising within the church and then leaving it. It is a lie about the nature of Christ (seemingly denying His humanity). READ 1 John 2:18-23; 4:1-6; 2 John 7-11.

I am continually baffled and saddened by the use of the term “antichrist” in any discussion of "contemporary eschatology" (consider what the Apostle said almost 2,000 years ago in 1 John 2:18!!). I don’t understand confusing “antichrist” with Revelation’s “beast,” since the term “antichrist” does not occur in Revelation and does not refer to a civil governmental individual, but a heretical doctrine inside the church.

So much muddiness!

I am disappointed with all the Protestants who are happily making much of the election of this new Pope and getting worked up by the few Reformed brethren who are yelling “antichrist.” The Reformed are reminding us that we are Protestant because we don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the true (much less “universal,” the meaning of “Catholic”) church. If your sense of denominationalism or theology has degenerated to the point that you can’t tell or articulate the difference between Protestants and Catholics, please join the Catholic Church. You’ll be far less of an embarrassment to the rest of us and won’t dishonor the memory of those who died to make it possible for you to not be Roman Catholic. Honestly confused over the issue? Give something like R.C. Sproul’s “Are We Together?” a read.

I am disappointed with my fellow Reformed brethren as Francis I begins his...reign (?). My brothers who today are yelling “antichrist” were actively campaigning for Romney the Mormon last year. This inconsistency is disappointing. Who the Pope is has far less impact or importance to us as Protestants than who sits in the White House. Fail, my dear brothers. Even apart from the biblical malpractice concerning "antichrist," fail.

So as not to end this post on this grievous note (having offended RCC friends, fellow Protestants, my Reformed brothers and sisters, and even Republican Christians), let me say this: the election of Francis I and all the reactions to it has been a sobering and always needful reminder that the work of studying, teaching, and preaching the Word of God is never done and will never become superfluous in the life of the Church.

Further up and further in. READ Ephesians 4:1-16; 2 Timothy 4:1-4.