Yesterday, Halloween, we also recognize (or “should recognize,” more importantly) that this year marks the 499th year after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church, in Wittenberg, Germany. Does the Reformation that Luther’s hammer triggered all those years ago still matter today? Pastor/teachers Don Carson, John Piper and Tim Keller answer that question.
Category Archives: Topics
Who is the AntiChrist?

Luca Signorelli. The Deeds of the Antichrist (1499-1504). Signorelli portrays the devil counseling the Antichrist. With an American Presidential election coming around the corner, I wonder who so-called “prophecy experts” might pick as the one and only Antichrist in our day?
So, who exactly is “the” antichrist?
Back in high school, I knew someone who was convinced that President Jimmy Carter was the antichrist. Carter was a very convincing orator in the 1970s, connecting extremely well with voters frustrated with the then current political situation. Carter even said that he was a “born again” Christian. But by negotiating a peace treaty in the Middle East between Israel and her enemies, was Carter fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 9:27, the antichrist who would “confirm the covenant with many?”
Okay, let us fast-forward some 35 plus years. He may not have been the best President we have ever had…. but the antichrist?
A lot of people speculate on who this antichrist might be. From military dictators to American presidents, the list of possible candidates seems about as endless as the human imagination (some folks even vote for their favorite picks). Most people get their information about the antichrist from books, movies, late-night cable TV, neighbors and friends.
But how many people know what the Bible actually teaches about the antichrist? You might be surprised to discover that a lot of popular ideas about antichrist owe more to overly fertile imaginations than the clear teaching of Scripture.
Continue reading
Nat Turner’s Virginia Slave Rebellion, Hollywood, and How We Read the Bible
In August, 1831, a literate slave and Bible preacher, Nat Turner, led a rebellion against his white masters, in rural Southampton County, about a one hour drive south of where I live in Williamsburg, Virginia. After the 48-hour mass killing of 55 whites ended, Turner’s insurrection was eventually crushed, and tougher laws were enacted to try to prevent such slave uprisings in the future.
Nate Parker’s new film, The Birth of a Nation, is a fictionalized retelling of this tragic and violent story (deserving of the R-rating)…and just to think, the events depicted only happened less than two hundred years ago, practically in my own backyard. The film’s director is enveloped in controversy, and early reviews of the film are mixed. Intended to subplant the legacy of the 1915 silent film of the same name, a cinematic apology for the Ku Klux Klan, Parker raises a number of important issues, but one wonders what the film will actually accomplish.
Gospel Coalition blogger, Justin Taylor, summarizes some of the most significant elements regarding the history behind the film’s story. For more details on the history, you can start with the Nat Turner Project. Some historians are disappointed with the inaccuracies of the film, which frustrates me, as I am more interested in the actual history than I am in Hollywood’s fantasies. Does the film tell us about what really happened, or does it tell us more about the mind and state of contemporary pop-culture? How much of the film is about Nat Turner, and how much of it is about the film’s director, Nate Parker?
In the film trailer below, the Nat Turner character recites 1 Peter 2:18, in an effort to encourage his fellow slaves to keep in line. I confess that I, as do so many other evangelicals, tend to water this passage down:
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust (1 Peter 2:18 ESV).
I have euphemistically tried to replace “servants” with “workers,” and “masters” with “supervisors,” but does that really get at the original context? I am afraid not.
Slavery during the New Testament period is difficult to comprehend in modern terms, and it was very different from how many Americans viewed slavery prior to the Civil War. As I have argued elsewhere (here and here), many of my southern, Virginia evangelical forefathers did not properly understand passages like this either. Instead, they read things into the Bible that were not there.
If any Veracity readers end up seeing the film, I would like to know your thoughts.
Final Update to the ESV?… Well, Not Exactly
Here on Veracity a few weeks ago, we noted the decision by Crossway, the publisher of the English Standard Version (ESV), that they had finally produced a permanent edition of the text of ESV Bible translation. However, Crossway has just announced that they have reversed this decision.
Have you ever wondered what it is like to listen in as Bible translators go about making decisions on how to translate a verse of Scripture? The following 4-minute video is an example of discussion by the ESV translation committee about I Corinthians 7, with respect to changing the word “slave” to the word “bondservant.”
HT: Dave Rudy
And “finally,” here is a very extreme view expressed by a King-James-Only advocate, Steven Anderson, an independent Baptist pastor in Tempe, Arizona, arguing why modern translations, like the ESV, “the NIV, the NAS[B], the RSV, [and] the SUV,” tamper too much with “changes” to the Bible. Conspiracy theory at its most “entertaining?” View at your own risk.
