Jeffress: Obama Paving the Way for the Antichrist


Robert Jeffress has catapulted himself to the head of the class of Southern Baptist preachers over the last few years by spewing a steady stream of inane statements and his new book continues that pattern. In a typical mix of end times theology and stupidity, he says:

For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws: that marriage should be between a man and a woman. While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God’s law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God’s laws without any repercussions.

Funny, that’s exactly what the defenders of slavery said, that the drive for abolition “openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws.” And they had every bit as strong case. The Bible endorses slavery repeatedly and attributes it to God’s explicit and direct command. And that whole religious freedom idea, isn’t that a clearly violation of one of “God’s most fundamental laws”? I mean, it’s very first commandment.

And Jeffress’ ideological predecessors at the time of the Constitution made exactly that argument, that the ban on religious tests for office and extension of religious freedom to non-Christians was a violation of God’s law and would bring down his wrath upon us all. The same arguments get used over and over again in opposition to every single advance in freedom and equality in our nation’s history and the Christian right has been on the wrong side in every single one of them.

Though Pastor Robert Jeffress insists that he doesn’t think that President Obama is the Antichrist, he does make the assertion that Obama’s policies are opening the door for the Antichrist in his newest book, Perfect Ending. The Dallas, Tex., based pastor of First Baptist Church has been warning his congregation about Obama for years.

“Although President Obama is certainly not the Antichrist, his policies are paving the way for the Antichrist,” explained Jeffress in a press release from his publisher.

Shouldn’t Jeffress be happy about this? I mean, the Antichrist has to come so that Christ returns, right? From his perspective, shouldn’t this be a really, really good thing?

Comments

  1. Michael Heath says

    The most interesting question when we observe this behavior is whether the protagonist is knowingly seeking to leverage the inherent racism in conservative Christianity, especially amongst Southern Baptists, or is just as oblivious to his own racism as that of his target audience.

    Brett McCoy writes:

    The Antichrist argument is used after they’ve exhausted all of the possibilities with comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis.

    Not always, in the 1970s many conservative Christians were promoting the idea that either Anwar Sadat or Henry Kissinger was the antichrist.

  2. dingojack says

    Soooo that’s what the push to improve the US’s infrastructure is really about – paving the way for the antichrist.. (’cause the antichrist hates that whole pothole thing, but Jesus, on the other hand, loves a good pothole does he).
    @@
    Dingo
    ——–
    Does this make Obama the ante-antichrist?

  3. Deacon Duncan says

    So Obama has been downgraded from Antichrist to Antichrist-precursor? Things are looking up.

  4. tfkreference says

    Out of curiosity, I searched an online bible for Antichrist. The first result as 1 John 2:18-19:

    18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

    19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    Apparently “us” means a group less encompassing than Homo sapiens.

  5. dingojack says

    Deacon Duncan – apart from Obama, I wonder what other ingredients you have to mix together to make the antichrist?
    ;) Dingo

  6. cptdoom says

    This is perfect for Jeffress though because when the Antichrist doesn’t appear by the end of Obama’s term, Jeffress can argue it was only because the faithful prayed so much. And, assuming a Dem wins again, Jeffress can trot the exact same argument again.

    @dingojack #6 – I’d say you need eye of Newt for a true Antichrist, but I think he’s using both of them right now, so we’ll have to wait awhile for the recipe to be perfect.

  7. skinnercitycyclist says

    Michael Heath:

    Not always, in the 1970s many conservative Christians were promoting the idea that either Anwar Sadat or Henry Kissinger was the antichrist.

    To be fair….

  8. Scott Hanley says

    For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws

    Funny, because until the Revolution, the need for a King was considered one of society’s most fundamental laws. Without a willingness to upend such fundamental laws, there would have been no United States at all.

  9. Al Dente says

    During the 1930s many Southern conservatives like Gerald H. K. Smith were calling Franklin Roosevelt the antichrist. For that matter during the Thirty Years War Catholic Count Tilly and Lutheran Gustavus Adolphus called each other the antichrist.

  10. sigurd jorsalfar says

    All Obama has ever done on the issue of gay marriage is go along with shifting societal norms, eventually and somewhat reluctantly. The courts and states change the rules, and Obama goes along with it. For this he is labelled the anti-christ. Guffaw.

  11. Matt G says

    Antichrist precedes Jesus = good, right? By the same token I never understood why Judas isn’t considered a hero by Christians. If he hadn’t turned Jesus in, no crucifixion, and no rising from the dead to save us all. Basic logic eludes them.

  12. Steve Morrison says

    @#3:
    I’m surprised nobody has ever discovered a pothole shaped like Jesus or Mary.

    @#5:
    Actually, all the Biblical mentions of “antichrists” are in the Gospel of John, and there’s nothing in-text which equates them to the (various) Beasts of Revelation.

  13. howardhershey says

    I must have missed the part of the Bible which specifies that marriage must be between one man and only one woman? Or the part that requires that marriage be consensual on the woman’s part. Perhaps he could direct me to those verses?

  14. busterggi says

    Wait a minute no. For six years these same folks have been saying Obama IS the anit-chirist, now he’s only preparing the way?

    Hell of a demotion.

  15. says

    When an extremist compares someone to Hitler or Stalin, the person is trying to rally votes against that person or party, or is trying to start an impeachment. It’s reaching and exaggerated, but it remains political speech and is not an incitement to violence.

    When an extremist calls someone the anti-christ (or connected to it), the speaker is trying to rally rabidly religious gun-toting types. It definitely is an incitement to violence (see: Neal Horsley’s “Nuremburg Files”). The speaker will claim “religious freedom” if anything happens to the target (in both senses of the word) of such diatribes.

  16. matty1 says

    Scott Hanley

    Funny, because until the Revolution, the need for a King was considered one of society’s most fundamental laws.

    Well yes in that the monarchy was central to the British government but it was hardly unquestioned given previous history nor was it universal among the societies the revolutionaries would have known about. They would surely have heard of the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederacy.

    A better analogy would be having an established church but sadly Jeffress might not see a problem with that.

  17. tfkreference says

    @19 Steve Morrison:
    Good point, and it’s the letters of John (1 & 2), not the gospel.

  18. lordshipmayhem says

    No, he has it wrong. It’s the antipasto that has to come, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can return.

Leave a Reply