Revelation: The Book of Blessing, Volume 10, Fascicle A: The Revelation in Commentaries and Cults

THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION & APOSTASY AND THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS IN 2 THESS. 2:3-8

Volume 10, Fascicle A, begins with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms. The Confession and Catechisms are well known and highly regarded for their clear statements concerning Biblical truths, and especially, WCF, Chapters 1-8, which some regard as the best statements of Biblical Christology outside of the Bible.

In Revelation: The Book of Blessing, Volume 1, I gave a summary of the principles for interpreting the Bible, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. I am enlarging upon these principles of interpretation here at the beginning of Volume 10, Fascicle A, in preparation for the discussion of the use of the Revelation, the Apocalypse, in the WCF (hereafter used as the abbreviation for the Westminster Confession of Faith). And also to address this specific question:

How did the Divines of the Westminster Assembly in the 17th century come to the conclusion in, WCF, Chapter 25 , item VI [that],

...the Pope of Rome... is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition?

How did the Divines come to the conclusion that the antichrist is the man of sin, the son of perdition?

Are such identifications correct and acceptable to Christians in the 21st Century?

According to 1 John 2:18, there are many antichrists: "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour."

Also, the last hour has a broad definition to match the broad definition of antichrist. The theme in common to all antichrists is the displacement of Christ, which is reflected in the word, anti, in antichrist: meaning, in opposition to Christ; displacing Christ. I think some commentaries have inadvertently displaced Christ by focusing too much on issues like the “millennium” or on specific historical judgments as events prophesied in the Apocalypse as elsewhere in the New Testament and fulfilled in this or that historical event.

Some commentaries are written and outlined so well, with diagrams, as to give the appearance of being correct just by virtue of their polished presentations. I am trying to give a polished presentation in Volume 10, Fascicle A, by establishing the criteria by which to evaluate the vast array of commentaries on the Book of Revelation, The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. These criteria are intended to help answer the questions:

1.) Why are there so many conflicting commentaries on this last Book of the Bible?

2.) How can many of these same commentaries so adequately answer the question about Jesus’ identity, and then crash into fantasy when it comes to the Revelation?

The differing and sometimes conflicting answers to these questions about interpreting the Apocalypse are partially the results of differing and sometimes conflicting Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. The following Principles govern and guide my interpretation of the Apocalypse, The Revelation and all of the other 65 Books of the Bible. The differences in Biblical Hermeneutics used by various writers are at times very subtle, and most often express the underlying assumptions which everyone has. I will bring out some of the subtleties and comment on assumptions in this discussion of Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics.