Prince Charles - Antichrist???
by John Yonge
(One Chapter from his Book)
Due to the numbers of post-trib' Christians in Texas who have adopted the ideas of Jim Searcy, Monte Judah, and others regarding Prince Charles of Wales being the anti-Christ, I am including this chapter.
Basic to the pro-Charles camp is a treaty signed by late Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, which was a seven-year agreement which, long before the mid-term, was opposed by the new/current government. The treaty was called, the "Oslo Accord," but it was also called the "Seven Year Peace Accords." It is a "land for peace" deal, assuring Arafat Israeli soil in return for peaceful co-existence. This deal is being proclaimed as the seven-year covenant of Daniel 9:27, making it the tribulation period.
Many believe the covenant in Daniel will be a peace treaty signed between Israel and the anti-Christ. This represents the popular view, but I would like to inform you that the Daniel text does not state anything of Israel's involvement in the deal, and there is nothing said about peace being its essence. Therefore, I strongly oppose the assumptions made, suggesting to you, to the contrary, that the deal will be a war pact with "the many," where "the many" are Gentiles alone.
While the Accord and the Daniel covenant are both noticeably seven-year agreements, we should have the wisdom to restrain ourselves a little before equating them on that basis alone. There may be a slew of seven-year agreements in the Middle East in the near future, in Satan's efforts to bring on the tribulation period, just as his sons are now trying to bring on the anti-Christ as soon as they can. There may even be prophecy "fulfillments" attempted by the Illuminati/Masons for the purpose of confusing Christians. You can bet that in the coming decade, Masons will be fighting with us directly as they try to bring on their skincode, while we oppose it. They are reading our writings, and we are reading theirs. They are keeping both eyes on our strategies, and we are watching their every move as well. Satan thinks he's going to defeat God in this final battle, explaining why his sons are eager to bring on the mark of the beast as quickly as possible. Therefore, don't be surprised if Biblical "fulfillments" of prophecy occur at least once before the true fulfillments, and have the wisdom to reject the false fulfillments. Bring all the Biblical material about a prophecy to the table, and then decide if it is true fulfillment or not. The Oslo Accord does not satisfy all the Biblical material required for the tribulation period.
The Accord was signed on September 13, 1993, positioning the middle of the tribulation in March of this year (I'm writing this late November of 1997). But the Abomination did not occur as expected near March of 1997, and all sorts of ideas are now being promoted in an effort to repair the situation, where I think the whole thing should just be abandoned. And we should have the wisdom to see that the absence of the skincode's implementation, now 8 months after the mid-way point, where even smart cards have not yet been enforced, amounts to another reason to abandon it. I saw, for the first time ever, a flagrant advertisement for the cashless society only yesterday (November 26), where the caption read, "Kiss Your Cash Goodbye." The banking institutions in the United States have not yet begun an advertising campaign for the cashless society they are planning; therefore, are we going to allow ourselves to believe that the mark of the beast will be fully enforced upon all the world in the next year or two? It will take that long, and more, just to convince the bulk of buyers to accept a cashless society (the smart cards alone).
There is one compelling piece of evidence for the Charles camp. The Hebrew word used in Daniel 9:27 for "many" is "rab." In other words, where it says the anti-Christ will make a covenant with "the rab," the pro-Charles camp is saying "Rabin" is implicated. They say "rabin" is the plural of "rab," but this is not acceptable because it would create a plural of an already pluralized word ("rab" means "many" and is already a plural). Furthermore, "im" is the Hebrew suffix denoting plurality, not "in." In any case, "rab" is very close to "Rabin," but this only serves to show how coincidences do occur, and how we must be careful not to entertain them without batting an eyelash. It would be another matter if the Accord had all the marks of the tribulation period, but it doesn't. The seven-year term is on its last leg, and we have not as much as entered the start of the tribulation. Not until Daniel 11:21-31 occurs have we entered the tribulation period. Furthermore, I don't think we can point to any one of Revelation's 21 plagues and declare a fulfillment at any time since September of 1993.
The Oslo Accord was signed by Rabin and Arafat, and this, according to popular-view logic, should make Arafat the anti-Christ. But in their believing Charles to be the anti-Christ, Jim Searcy and others have denied this. It's not the one who signs the deal, they now say, but it's the one who "confirms" it that is the anti-Christ. Well, how are we now going to define "confirm" if it doesn't mean the actual signing of the deal? As one who confirms it in his mind? Or with a handshake? Or with a nod? It can make quite a few men the anti-Christ since many could "confirm" the treaty outside of signing the Papers.
Speculation by the Charles camp concerns very unbiblical proofs, including red moons, comets, and the zodiak, which in one way or another point to these last years of the 20th century. Red moons due to lunar eclipses are nothing new and occur often when sunlight refracts through our atmosphere and reflects off the lunar surface. One red eclipse occurred over Jerusalem right on Passover in 1996, and another red moon occurred over the same city right on Tabernacles of that same year, according to the Charles promoters. These men pointed the two eclipses out as peculiar to the Rabin deal, but while the occurances on two Jewish Feasts in the same year may strike you as amazing, understand, first off, that lunar eclipses occur only during the full moon. Both Passover and Tabernacles, year in and year out, always fall on the full moon by design! Furthermore, unless it is extra-ordinary for there to be two eclipses six months apart, as Passover and Tabernacles are exactly 6 (lunar) months apart, how could we possibly enter this double-whammy as good evidence of anything? Yes, lunar eclipses often come 6 months apart, so that if one happens to fall on Passover, there is a good chance that one will also fall on the following Tabernacles. This must happen, sooner or later, and it has happened in previous history several times. There is, on average, more than a 50% chance for a lunar eclipse to occur on one of the three Jewish festivals which begin on a full moon. If there are three lunar eclipses in one year, there is a 3 in 4 chance.
Enter Hale-Bopp, the comet which came closest to the sun about the time marked by the Charles camp as the mid-way point of the tribulation (March 1997). I am certain that if the comet was nearest to the earth at that time, they would have claimed that to be the sign. And if it were midway between the earth and sun, they would have claimed that to be the sign. And if it were closest to Saturn, they would have claimed that to be a sign, since Saturn sounds like Satan. And if it were closest to Jupiter, they would have claimed that to be a sign, since Jupiter (Zeus) was God in Roman/Greek paganism. And if it was closest to Mars, they would have claimed that to be a sign, since Mars means is the god of war. Are you getting the picture? I would be more convinced of Hale-Bopp's doom-and-gloom significance if the Abomination had also occurred at the midway point, and if the anti-Christ had been finally revealed to the world. But I do not consider the writings of Jim Searcy and others to be the revelation of the anti-Christ, that is for sure. They do not have a handle on the Biblical prophecies concerning the anti-Christ, but they do make up their own (new) prophecies so that you ought to be careful.
1996, when the pro-Charles people were fully expecting the Abomination to
occur around the mid-way point of March, 1997, they made many predictions
for 1997 as a whole. They said:
of these predictions have yet come to pass, and 1997 is nearly out. Ken
He predicts that Charles will have everything to do with getting the Altar Service started. He then predicts that Charles would come and put a halt to the Altar Service and proclaim himself to be the Messiah of Israel (anti-Christ). You see, they haven't got a handle on the Biblical prophecies concerning Anti-Christ. They think he will proclaim himself as the Jewish Messiah, but where does Scripture say the anti-Christ will come and pose as the Messiah? Nowhere! His proclaiming to be "god" in the middle of the tribulation (Dan. 11:36) does not mean he will proclaim himself as the Jewish Messiah, as the Daniel 11:21-36 text clearly shows otherwise. The term "anti" in "anti-Christ" does not suggest his posing as the Messiah, but rather that he will oppose the Messiah, which is what the scriptures show (Dan. 8:11, Rev. 13:5-6). Surely, if the anti-Christ is to come and pose as the Messiah of the Bible, the Bible would have told us this in open terms, but we see, quite to the contrary, that the anti-Christ will blaspheme the God of the Bible.
making his (wrong) predictions, Ken tells us the Daniel prophecies were
sealed to everyone except to "men of insight" like himself.
Then, laying the groundwork for yet another wrong prediction, he says,
Working on this superstitious belief, he and others have predicted a famine in 1997, even in the United States, but it has not materialized, and, as the growing season is all but over, there would not likely be one before year's end. In fact, Americans have eaten very well in 1997 so that no one could convince me that there has been a famine in the land, no matter how the words are dressed. Ken reported how some ranchers in Texas had gone out of business or sold off their cows, and this sort of thing is supposed to constitute the heart of Hale-Bopp's famine-curse.
Searcy, before the predictions were to become true, condemned himself:
is not the only one to claim the Daniel 11:33 text in support of his own
elevation to "prophethood," or in claiming his own views to be
true. And he is not the last to fall on account of his false ideas. Others
are sure to convince themselves that they are hearing from God when in
fact they are not. It is a form of Christian mysticism that is taking hold
of many in this decade, whose heads are becoming "crystal
balls," where pictures that occur in thier minds are taken as
God-given visions. Please, reader, be careful in how you promote yourself.
Never call yourself a prophet of God, for He will surely put you to shame.
And never, in the Name of God, reveal your visions and dreams in public
documents, unless you actually hear Him telling you to do so. In the
Millennium, the end-time "prophets" which survive Armageddon
will be humbled by God (please see Zechariah 13):
Prophets of the pro-Charles camp, your predictions have been tested, and you have not come out shining, that's for sure. But we can forgive you for your mistakes of the past, only don't continue in them in an effort to rectify yourselves, for you will only entrench yourself deeper in God's displeasure. Drop this Oslo Accord theory, and we will forgive you. But if you continue, you will destroy yourself and your reputation.
can see that it is not the Bible which is being appealed to, to prove
their ideas? And where they do touch on the Bible, they are very sloppy.
The false prophet has egotistical ideas of his position before God, and of
his own Biblical understanding, leading to special claims like the
He says it refers to the seven "Charles" which ruled the Roman empire over the past centuries, and that Prince Charles of Wales is the eighth Charles, thus making him the anti-Christ of Revelation 17. Sounds pretty amazing, but doesn't Revelation 17 tell us that one of the seven kings was ruling when the Revelation was being given to the apostle John? Yes. And does it not say that the king which was ruling at that time (around 90 AD) was the sixth king? Yes, it does. Well, then, how could the seven heads of the beast be the seven Charles' of the Roman empire? The sixth Charles to rule Rome (Charles VI) started ruling in 1711 AD! Clearly, a huge problem, large enough to utterly discredit the theory.
While I've made mention of the seven heads of the beast in other chapters, let me do so again here. The sixth king which was ruling when Revelation was written was Emperor Domitian; the one to follow (Nerva) ruled the short time of 16 months. The other five were Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian and Titus, who had fallen by that time. They represented the anti-Christ spirit during the ministry of the apostles from Gaius' reign in 37 AD to Nerva's reign in 98 AD, having as one main purpose the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The eighth king, or the anti-Christ, will come after the interval of Revelation 17:8, to bring back that anti-Christ spirit through a revived, end-time Rome. These seven were the most wicked rulers of the Roman empire, according to popular (and secular) historian Will Durrant. If one but studies their lives, one can see them as incarnations of Satan to a large degree. Indeed, the Biblical picture of the seven heads of the beast serves to show how the kings which the heads represent are very closely controlled by Satan. The anti-Christ will be a ruler along the same lines, and this is why he belongs to the seven.
They say you can derive a 666 out of Charles' title somehow by using the first 22 letters of the English alphabet, where each letter is given a certain value. However, the last 4 letters of the alphabet must equal zero. Why? Why do these men make up their own rules as they go along? Because, apparently, the "W" in "Wales" ruins everything unless it is given the value of zero. By what criteria do they decide on making the last four letters (w, x, y, z) zeroes? Take your choice on a number of ways! According to one Charles supporter, the Hebrew alphabet only has 22 letters, so we are not supposed to include the last four letters of our alphabet. Sheeesh! What do we do with the fact that the Hebrew alphabet has a "y" and a "z," not to mention a quasi-w in the letter "vav"?
They also say that we can get a 666 from the Hebrew and Greek alphabets. After checking out the Greek method, and discovering a fatal flaw, I didn't bother looking at the Hebrew method. In the Greek method, they count the 6th letter of the alphabet as the numeral, six, when in fact that alphabet skips six, going from five to seven at that point, so that the sixth letter actually represents the numeral, seven. The numeral, six, is represented by the letter "tau," coming near the end of the alphabet, which also stands for the numeral, 300.
Someone has discovered that BILL GATES III equals 666 in ASCII, providing the "III" is counted as 3. Using ASCII again, WINDOWS 95 and MS-DOS 6.21 also add up to 666. To some, this means that Bill Gates is the anti-Christ, with the mark in the right hand represented by the computer mouse, and the mark in the forehead being represented by the computer screen. I kid you not! Purchasing, they are saying, will not be possible apart from ordering through a computer.
Now, if it's true that Mr. Gates named his latest Windows version so that it added up to 666, it doesn't make him the anti-Christ. It merely means he is toying with the 666, as many will. For many will take the number on in one way or the other in jest against us, while many will do so more seriously. But they can't all be the anti-Christ.
"Zhirinophski" adds up to 666 in the Hebrew alphabet if all vowels are counted as the numeral, one, and where the "ph" is the letter, "phe." However, the above is not, as far as I know, the correct spelling of his name, which is spelt "Zhirinovsky" by all the media. I point this out to show the ways to fool with things to get our infamous 666. There are a host of other 666s which can be derived in one way or another, including the insignia on the back of the pope's robe, which, in Latin, means "Vicar of Christ" (but only the Roman numerals must be included). The one who was promoting Karl von Habsburg as the anti-Christ was able to get a 666 from his name, too, where a = 6, b =12, c =18, and so on.
The pro-Charles camp says that Charles is a descendant of king David, and that there has been a family chart made available to prove this. How do we know the chart was not a fake, and what difference would it make, anyway, since the Bible does not say the anti-Christ will be Jewish by blood? And what Jewish blood could there remain in Charles anyway, after all these centuries of intermarriages between his European ancestors? Proabably one-third of all mankind today are descended from Shem, but does this mean we have Semitic blood? Ken Crouch says, "In May of this year  there was a documentary on Israeli television about Prince Charles which introduced his lineage chart to the Jewish people." This chart disclosed Charles as a descendant of King David. But what if the Israeli government and Charles were just playing tricks with us to carry out some secret mission which only they know about? After all, both Rabin and Charles attained to the highest levels of Masonry! And Masonry is pure trickery by nature. Indeed, it is very difficult for me to believe that the family tree of Charles exists all the way back to 1,000 BC (to David's time), suggesting to me that a trick is involved here. Let's go all the way and suppose that Satan is using Charles to (try and) make him the anti-Christ? So what? How do we know Satan will succeed with him? In other words, it's what the Bible says that we should keep our eyes on, not on what Satan, or Masons, might try to fulfill. I am sure Satan has tried to bring the anti-Christ to his mission many times in the past, but each time he has failed.
The Bible does not say England is the nationality of the anti-Christ, though one man I've talked to has found some "evidence" for this in Daniel 11:18. Unfortunately, 11:18 is referring to Antiochus III (the Great), meaning that the "isles" in that verse are not referring to the British Isles, as this man suggested to me, but to the islands off of Greece. Do you see what I mean by "sloppy."
The pro-Charles camp will point out that Charles is a "prince," and then they find one scripture that calls the anti-Christ a "prince" (Daniel 9:26), and that is supposed to be a secret sign. They will also tell us that "Charles" means "man," and so they find a scripture about the anti-Christ that uses the term, "man," and this, too, is supposed to be a sign. One problem that comes to mind is that "Carl" is a form of "Charles," meaning the Karl von Habsburg has just as much claim to an anti-Christ scripture which uses "man." In fact, Prince Charles is of the Habsburg house by lineage, and we could have a lot of fun with this fact 'til the wee hours of the morning, if we wanted to. By dawn, we could come up with an amazing "revelation" or "coincidence" of one sort or another.
Using what they would consider "Biblical proofs," they point to little pictures on Charles' coat of arms and if there's a dragon, then that makes him the anti-Christ. Well, there is a dragon, and a red one at that! But is Charles the only man with a dragon on his coat of arms? You know that's not true. Yet, they heap up "evidences" like this and make a mound so big that some are thinking to eat it out of their hands. Ken says the coat of arms has "a dog supported by a roaring lion and a unicorn, (called a wild beast with a straight horn, or a wild oxen)." Well, I guess that clinches it; especially the "wild beast" part which Ken was sure to slip in there, in his brackets. Ken and others say that there is a beast with "the head of a lion, body of a leopard and feet of a bear," the very description of the (anti-Christ) beast Revelation 13:2. I took a look because I thought this was rather amazing, but I saw no feet of a bear and nothing that would indicate the body of a leopard especially, but if one wanted to view the large lion paws as the paws of a bear, or the thin lion-body as the body of a leopard, I suppose they have that right.
You do realize that Masons are all over the world using these sorts of symbols, and have been for centuries, and while they do in fact reflect the anti-Christ in ways, you cannot use such symbolism to identify the anti-Christ because so many use the same symbols. By the same sort of reasoning, I could proclaim a rock musician to be the anti-Christ just because he has a "666" and a red dragon on his record cover. The Masonic training in Prince Charles might get him to doing things that are quite anti-Christian, but so what? The fellow down your street and around the corner a bit is also a high-level Mason participating in the same sort of occultic ceremonies and training his mind in the same way. I understand that the eagle on the dollar bill has 32 feathers on one side and 33 on the other, where these would represent the highest degrees in Masonry. This sort of thing is wide-spread, so ignore it when it comes to identifying the anti-Christ.
I was surprised to hear that Prince Charles attended Rabin's funeral, where other heads of state attended. But it is not surprising at all if Charles is trying to be a prominent figure in Europe? The pro-Charles camp say that he has asked the EEC if he could act as king of Europe, and while I find this hard to believe, even if it's true, it does not make him the anti-Christ. There are many men seeking that high position in Europe (though I don't know if any have had the audacity to ask the EEC for it), and Charles, as the king-to-be of his own country certainly has a good shot. Maybe the man thinks he is the anti-Christ, or maybe he aspires to be...and maybe this is why Diana left him...but it's what the Bible says that matters in the end, not what a man may say or desire, and the Bible does not reveal a British monarch as the anti-Christ.
all know how Charles does not have the personality to fill the
anti-Christ's boots. But here is how the Charles camp tries to patch up
The Bible says the anti-Christ will be a military warthog, a looter, and an invader of the Middle East, but I hardly think that Charles fits the description just because he can fly an Air Force bird or swing a good game of polo. This is desperation on the part of the Charles camp. The fact is, Charles is a vegetarian because he does not approve of the killing of any animal. Does this remind you of the Biblical anti-Christ? No, not at all, but the Charles camp has created "a curve," saying that his vegetarian lifestyle is the very reason that he will stop the sacrifices on the altar. This is so funny that I must laugh. The anti-Christ will slaughter humans by the scores, but he doesn't like killing animals!
There is no doubt in our minds why Jim is not firm in his idea that the "42-month war" had started in March of 1997. It is because he himself is now realizing that there is no war. But, to save face, he says there is an "undeclared state of war" in effect at this time. He is changing his tune slowly, and you can expect new ideas and patches in the coming year. Eventually, within three years, he will abandon the 1993 Accord as anything related to the tribulation period. But the message in all this is not just Jim Searcy, but about the future prophets who will come and mislead the believers in similar ways. It's about you, and what it is that you will swallow as these men come in the Name of God.
Me you do not need to fear, for I give no new prophecies. I may say something that God has lead me to say which may turn out to be a true prophecy, or I may say something that Satan has influenced me to say, but in both cases, I am unaware of the instances. I write from my insights as I grapple with Biblical declarations, not through new, personal prophecies and/or visions.
For us to entertain Charles as the anti-Christ, we pretty much need to expect a schizoid change of personality in the man. From the mild-mannered gentleman that he is today, we are to expect him to become a foul-mouthed invader of the Middle East, and to plunder the strongholds one by one with venomous Arabs to his side. Charles must, therefore, abandon his respected position in the British Isles, with all of Europe and the world watching, and must call the anti-Israeli forces to arms against the Jews, and must then proclaim himself to be God. I suppose it is possible for any man to go mad while at the same time obtain power to conquer the Middle East, but, certainly, we must also recognize the much greater possibility that Charles will not go mad and, therefore, will not fulfill the anti-Christ's boots in the Middle East.