Thoughts on the “False Prophet”
We sent the
following thoughts out to various brothers and sisters a couple of weeks ago on
the subject of the False Prophet. The
effort was not put into the organization of these comments as one would do in
putting together an article or lecture but we thought a few passing remarks
were in order considering the fact that there seems to be a growing number of
brethren who are making careless assumptions regarding the true identity of the
False Prophet. It was felt that maybe a
few observations would be in order.
Since sending this message out we have not had the time to develop these
thoughts into a “true” article but offer these remarks for posting on our
ecclesial web-site just the same. We
appreciate the comments that we have received back from some of the recipients
of the original message and have provided a couple of the responses at the end
of this message.
Brothers and Sisters,
This is by no means
meant to be an article or an exhaustive dealing with the matter at hand, but
these are things I felt needed mentioning.
In recent years there has been a tendency by some, and maybe by some of
you who receive this e-mail, to identify the “False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13;
“When Islam was founded
in the 7th Century as a new, higher religion, it considered the
revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad to be superior to the former levels
of Old and New Testament revelation.
Christianity fought Islam as a Christian heresy…this new threat was
seen as the fulfillment of the Apocalypse concerning the coming of the False prophet.”
(Emphasis added.)
So is was
the Catholics who first identified Islam as the “False Prophet”, which should
be no surprise that they would be very quick to identify the concept with
someone else rather then themselves. The
Catholics continued this method (as you all know) of turning around prophetic
passages that were in fact referring to them, especially with the formation of
the Jesuit sect to defend the honor of the Papacy against the actions of the
Protestant movement who were loudly and correctly (despite their own doctrinal
shortcomings) pointing the finger at the Catholic Church as the “False
Prophet”, “Harlot”, “Man of Sin”, etc.
The idea of “Islam” as the “False Prophet” is not supported in the
scriptures and unfortunately risks falling prey to the Roman Catholic diversion
itself.
It also should be understood
that to be a “False Prophet”, in relation to the way it is used in the
scriptures, such a one needs to have had roots in the Truth or certain
relationship to it as to be any real spiritual threat to the Truth. A false prophet is one who deceives and
promotes error while pretending to be representative of God’s
will. We have to remember that
Catholicism came out of the True Ecclesia and in fact deceived and promoted
error – hence a “False Prophet”. True believers, as well
as many close to the Truth, have understood this identification
through the centuries. Islam does
not share the same relationship to the early ecclesia, though no doubt it also
teaches error. Catholicism is the
Apostasy or falling away spoken of in the scriptures and one of the main
subjects of the Apocalypse. There are
many false religions in this world besides Catholicism including Islam,
Buddhism, and other various isms. But no
other world religion can trace its roots out of the True Ecclesia except for
the Catholic System, which is why the terms “harlot”, and “false prophet” are
so fitting. And Islam did not have a hand in distorting and apostatizing the true Faith. It was not a deceiving or
"false prophet" element in making a mess out of Christ's
ecclesia. Islam does not have a central leader that claims to
be "the vicar of Christ", "infallible", "The
Holy Father", and etc. - a claim of a "false
prophet". And there is no
other religious system that has persecuted both natural and spiritual
We know that the rise of Mohammedism is spoken of in Revelation 9 as a punishment on
both the Eastern and Western portions of Apostasy,
which became a painful thorn in Catholicism’s side for centuries, having a
profound affect on the course of world history. "Militantism"
has always characterized this movement so this is really nothing
new. By no means do we wish to
minimize the role of the Islamic religion, nor the role that some of the Arab
nations have played in history and are playing in current events. But that does not mean that we force
interpretations on symbols in the scriptures that just do not fit the
evidence and clues that the scriptures themselves give us. Unquestionably many of the Arab
countries and greater Islamic world are anti
One final quote I think is
interesting comes from Bro. Thomas who was very aware during his time of
those who thought that the “False Prophet” should be identified with
Islam. He states:
“Protestant
and papal scribes are in the habit of applying the epithet “false prophet” to
Mohammed, and therefore do not perceive its applicability to the Roman
bishop. But neither Mohammed, nor his
successors, are termed the “false prophet” in the
apocalypse. The Arabian was false enough
doubtless; but he was a far more respectable character than any pope that has
ever reigned; and were I to choose between the two superstitions, I would
rather be a Moslem than a papist. It was
the glory of Mohammed to destroy idolatry; it is the infamy of the popes to be
the high priests of the “queen of heaven”…The epithet “false prophet” is
singularly applicable to the Roman bishop.
It is a part of his function to preach or prophesy; that is, to “speak
unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” From him these blessings are supposed to flow
to all “his children.” Aaron was given
to Moses to be his prophet because he could speak well. As Aaron then, was
speaker, mouth, or prophet, to Moses; so the pope is now mouth, or prophet, or
speaker, of the papacy, and no more. He
is virtually stripped of his dominions; he can prophesy, but his rule is a
thing of name, and not a fact. A false
prophet is he; truthless as Satan; sporting himself
with his own deceivings, and thereby provoking a
speedy fate, which is “capture and destruction.””
-Herald of the Kingdom and
Age to Come, Volume I, pp. 73, 74
These are just some things
to consider. Much more could be said on the matter.
Here a couple of additional comments from our correspondence that provide points that are of interest in regards to the subject:
§
I think
that it is interesting to note the consistency in the Scriptures concerning prophetic
identifications. Also, I imagine that under the Messiah's leadership it will be
much easier for the Muslim nations (the largest growing religion on earth
today) to accept his rule since they will not have the same struggle rejecting
the superstition of the trinity that the apostate and pagan world will have.
This has some background historically since
the churches in the East under the
We know from the Scriptures that the Arab
nations (with the exception of the Palestinians in my view) will survive the Messianic
invasion after being subdued. I think that they too will fall easily, nothing
like the opposition that
-Faith Erickson Gini
§
…among the
things left unsaid would include the fact that according to latter-day prophecy
Syria (Iraq) will be part of a, pardon the expression, ( triune) of nations
that will share in the glory of Israel....Egypt being the other nation. These nations will not be utterly
destroyed...In fact, I believe this other son of Abraham
will have a significant role to play as a servant to
This, however, is not the fate of the false
profit.....a bottomless pit and utter destruction is what I gather from
John.....the "harlot" will no longer be a problem to her....
-Stuart Sanders