As if there weren’t enough silliness in the world, there are now those who are speculating that Barack Obama is the antichrist.

The whole idea of looking for the antichrist is based on the flawed notion that the book of Revelation can be read as a roadmap to future events. This misreading has lead to an interpretive tradition that has built up a rather imaginative framework in which Revelation can be read. The Left Behind series, for instance, draws upon this concept to construct a fictional idea of what will happen at the end of time as a way to instruct readers about things that supposedly will happen at the end of time. This framework has led to many believers thinking they know more about the antichrist than St. John ever did.

The current brouhaha actually seems to have two levels. On one level there is the ads being put out by the McCain camp itself, such as the one below.1 This ad and the discussions by opinion mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not intended as a serious statement that Obama is an antichrist. Instead, they is meant to poke fun at his popularity, his inspiring speeches, and the religious imagery he and his supporters sometimes use. It is Politics 101: take something positive about your opponent and make it seem like a negative.

Apparently it is acceptable for Republicans to use religious language about their candidate but not Democrats. I listened to talk show hosts on Christian radio in Washington, DC, say over and over that God choose Bush instead of Gore so that Bush would be commander-in-chief on September 11, 2001, usually with a quote from Esther 4:14 that Bush had come to power for “such a time as this.” But for some reason the same language used about a Democratic candidate raises red flags.2

Yet even though this topic is intended on the surface to poke fun at Obama, I am sure those who are originating the discussion are also aware that it will provoke unease about Obama in some circles (primarily evangelical circles).  While John Hagee and Jerry Jenkins have both rejected the idea that Obama is the antichrist, others have accepted it. Take, for example, the Barack Obama the Antichrist? blog, which seriously discusses the question of whether Obama is the antichrist.3 Steve Waldman of beliefnet.com has a good article in the Wall Street Journal that takes a look at this blog and some others, as well as discussing the McCain ad.

It is rather depressing that dispensationalism still holds sway over enough of the population that this kind of interpretation could be accepted by even a small percentage of the population. Here is a small sampling of the faulty arguments from Barack Obama the Antichrist?:

  • “Obama has really been using biblical rhetoric, and people are seeing him as ‘the one’ to save us.” Of course, the Bible never says that the antichrist will be give the title “The One.” And if the use of biblical rhetoric makes one the antichrist, then I know a number of preachers that may qualify.
  • Barack referred to himsef as the devil. Even setting aside the fact that the devil and the antichrist are two different figures, what Obama said was, “It’s the devil you know verses the devil you don’t.” Numerous politicians have quoted this well-known proverb, but that doesn’t make them the antichrist.
  • When confronted with the idea that Revelation was referring to someone in the first century, he states that this may be the case, but “[e]ither way, Barack Obama stands against many of my beliefs.” But just because someone stands against many of your beliefs does not make them the antichrist; it makes them the antiyou. Obama also shares one belief in common with the guy, however, namely his belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Apparently such a belief is not enough to prevent him from being the antichrist.
  • He quotes Matthew 24:4-8, which says that there will be famines and earthquakes at the end of time. He follows this by saying, “I am just saying this weather phenomenon is really lining up with the phenomenon that is Barack Obama.” Of course, Matthew 24:4-8 does not mention weather; it meantions famines and earthquakes. And if we are going to connect national leaders to bad weather, I think Bush and Katrina hold the number one slot.
  • Finally, the guy who writes the blog refers to the last book of the Bible as “Revelations,” when the actual title is “Revelation.” Yes, it is a minor point, but it is a pet peeve of mine.

I could multiply these examples ad naseum, but you get the point. I couldn’t find a place where he makes an extended argument for Obama being the antichrist. Most of the blog is just posts that take a recent news story about Obama and argue that this is the kind of thing the antichrist would do.

I will be the first to admit that Obama supporters have sometimes gone overboard in their praise of Barack, just as most political supports do. Take, for example, the blog entitled Is Barack Obama the Messiah? But if such overstatements and exaggeration were always taken at face value, the hagiography about Reagan would have me believing that he was the Second Coming of Christ.


  1. The ad says at the end that it was paid for by John McCain 2008, but it does not contain the standard “I’m John McCain and I approve this ad.” I don’t know if the candidate himself endorses this approach. [back]
  2. Yes, I am aware that double standards in politics are common practice. For instance, the same Republicans who are arguing that Obama does not have enough experience are the same ones that said eight years ago that Bush had plenty of experience, even though Bush had held public office only eight years while Obama has been in public office eleven years. [back]
  3. If you doubt whether the Left Behind series could inspire something like this, the blog has a link to the series in his sidebar. It is in a group entitled “Christian Links.” The only other links there connect to an online Bible and a site that discusses end-times prophecy. [back]
Permalink