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 the Oslo-Accord treaty signed by late (i.e. assassinated) Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, a seven-year "land for peace" deal assuring Arafat Israeli territory in return for peaceful co-existence. Thus, the treaty is also known as the "Seven Year Peace Accords," and these few words provide the impetus to strike some raw nerves in all Christians who wrongly believe that the seven-year "covenant" in Daniel 9:27 refers to peace between the anti-Christ and Israel.
Indeed, the Oslo Accord is hastily being proclaimed by too many as the Daniel- 9:27 covenant, meaning also that it is being declared as the tribulation period, for that is what the Daniel covenant translates into. But, then, the Daniel covenant must in reality be a war pact between the anti-Christ and many anti-Israelis, a scheme for military operations that defines the prophesied "great tribulation" and "desolation" of Israel. There is nothing said in Daniel (or elsewhere) to corroborate peace as the covenant's essence, and as war with Israel is its clearly-stated result, God must be telling us that it is a deal to make war. Therefore, "the many" who partake with the anti-Christ in the covenant must be referring to many Gentiles, not many Jews.
While the Accord and the Daniel covenant are both noticeably seven-year agreements, we should have the wisdom to restrain ourselves before equating them on that basis alone. The Oslo Accord and its timing do not satisfy all the Biblical components required for the tribulation period. For example, the skincode can never be issued in time for the mid-way point of the Accord, and the anti-Christ has not yet begun his 2300-day rampage of Israel seen in Daniel 8.
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, so that face-saving over-hauls are now underway in the Charles camp. As is common in such wounding situations, new false predictions become bandages for exposed false predictions.
There is one compelling piece of evidence for the Charles camp, perhaps explaining why the movement is yet stammering along when it ought to be dead by now. The Hebrew word used in Daniel 9:27 for "the 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. That's pretty amazing stuff. However, they say "rabin" is the plural of "rab," but, last I heard, "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.
The Oslo Accord was signed by Rabin and Arafat, and this, according to 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 (Daniel uses "confirm"). Well, Mr. Searcy, please tell us how we must define "confirm" if it doesn't mean the actual signing or making of the deal? As one who confirms it with a handshake, perhaps, or with a mere nod? This can make quite a few men candidates for the anti-Christ since any one of them can "confirm" the treaty apart from signing the Papers.
Speculation by the Charles camp involves non-biblical foundations, including red moons, comets, and the zodiak, which in one way or another are manipulated to emphasize the seven-year period of the Accord. Red moons due to lunar eclipses are nothing new and occur often when low levels of sunlight first refract through our atmosphere and strike the moon, and then reflect back to us from the lunar surface. One such eclipse occurred over Jerusalem on Passover in 1996, and another red moon occurred over the same city on Tabernacles of that same year, according to the Charles promoters, and these events falling on major Jewish feasts were said to be pregnant with divine meaning and peculiar to the Rabin deal. However, while lunar eclipses falling on two Jewish Feasts in the same year may strike some as being quite remarkable, it isn't so when it's known that lunar eclipses occur only during full moons while both Passover and Tabernacles, celebrated on the 15th day of their respective months, fall year in and year out exclusively on the full moon by Design! This is because the Jewish months always begin on a new moon, two weeks (a half month) before the full moon.
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 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 was the god of war. I would be more convinced of Hale-Bopp's profound significance if the Abomination had also occurred at the midway point of the accord, and if the anti-Christ had been finally revealed to the world at that time.
In 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. For example:
"There will be war in the Middle East. This war will be short, but very devastating. We will see a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and Amos 1, where Damascus will cease to be a city and be left as nothing but a ruinous heap. World economic systems will collapse, and as a result of the mutual defense treaty which Syria has with Russia, there may be Russian nuclear strikes..." (written by Ken Crouch).
None of these predictions have yet come to pass, and 1997 is nearly out. Ken Crouch continues,
"Shortly after this war, the Jews will begin the Altar Service, the sacrifice of lambs at evening and morning."
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). But, in thinking that he will proclaim himself as the Jewish Messiah, they haven't got one hand on the handle of Biblical prophecies concerning Anti-Christ's identity. Just where does Scripture tell us that 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, for the Daniel 11:21-36 text clearly shows otherwise, that he is a mortal enemy of Israel prior to the "abomination of desolation" (v 36).
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 Biblical Messiah, the Bible would have revealed this in open terms, whereas we see quite to the contrary, that the anti-Christ will blaspheme the God of the Bible (Dan. 11:36) and war against His saints for virtually the full seven years (i.e. 2300 days of Daniel 8).
After 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 spurious, and dead-wrong, prediction, he says,
"Remember, the 4,000 year comet, Hale-Bopp, which will be at its brightest ebb at the mid-point of the seven years? To the people in the Middle East a comet means famine."
Working on superstition, he and others have predicted a famine in 1997, to spread even into the United States, although one has not occurred, and, as the growing season is all but over, there will not likely be one before year's end. In fact, Americans have eaten very well in 1997. Still, 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.
Jim Searcy, before the predictions were to become true, condemned himself:
"Men of insight, or men of understanding, are prophesied to come and are mentioned in Daniel 11:33; 12:3 and 12:10. There is a way for you to test these men of insight..."
Jim is not the only one to claim the Daniel 11:33 text in support of his own elevation to "prophethood." And he is not the last to fall. Others are sure to convince themselves that they are hearing from God when in fact they are not. It is a sloppy Christian mysticism at the roots that is taking hold of many in this decade. 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 absolutely 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):
"And it shall be in that day, the prophets shall be ashamed, each one of his vision..." (13:4).
Prophets of the pro-Charles camp, your predictions have been tested, and you have not come out shining. 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.
You 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. A false prophet has egotistical ideas of his position before God, and of his own Biblical understanding, leading to special claims like the following:
"No one has been able to explain this riddle [of the seven kings] in the past, but I will explain it to you."
He says it refers to the seven "Charles" which ruled the Roman empire over several of 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 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 to identify them as Roman caesars of the first century alone. Due to many erroneous teachings, this view is not recognized by most Christians today, and, yet, it is more than implicit in Revelation 17 where the sixth head/king is said to be in power (Rev. 17) when Revelation was written (90ish AD), which makes him Emperor Domitian (ruled to 96 AD). As is required by the prophecy, the seventh king to follow had to rule a short time, and this was certainly fulfilled by Nerva, who ruled but 16 months. The other five were Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian and Titus, who, as required by the prophecy, had fallen by the time the prophecy was given to John.
All seven represented the anti-Christ spirit during the ministry of the apostles from Gaius' reign in 37 AD to Nerva's reign in 98 AD, but had the God-given purpose of defeating Israel and banishing the Jews from the land, as recorded briefly in Daniel 9:26, where the "ruler" can only be Satan (working through Roman powers) because he also lives in the end-times of verse 27. The eighth king, the anti-Christ, will come after the interval of Revelation 17:8, an interval also read between the lines in Daniel 9:26, at which time the previous anti-Christ spirit through the seven heads will be revived through the ten horns. This revival is the meaning of the healing of the 7th head in Revelation 13, seen also in Rev. 17:8, and is the reason that crowns are on the seven heads of the Revelation-12 beast while crowns are on the ten horns in the Revelation-13 beast. You see, the beast in chapter 12 is in power (through the seven kings) in the ancient Roman empire, and is of the previous God-sanctioned anti-Christ/anti-Israeli spirit, whereas the God-sanctioned beast in chapter 13 is slated for the end times after a "now is not" period of unknown duration.
The seven, along with three uprooted emperors in 69-70 AD, were the ten most wicked rulers of the Roman empire, according to popular (and secular) historian Will Durrant. If one studies what is known about them, one can certainly see incarnations of Satan. Indeed, the very Biblical picture of the seven heads situated on the beast specifically serves to show how the seven kings are intimately controlled by Satan. The anti-Christ will be a ruler along the same lines, persecuting Israel once again under God-sanctioned but Satan-empowered authority, and banishing them from Palestine in the process, and this is why he belongs to the seven, not for any worldly connections that we might dredge up from history books, but because God is personally using them to persecute Israel with the just and final result of undermining Satanic control of the world once and for all time.
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 are assigned a value of 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 any number of creative 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, as long as 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 is represented by the computer mouse, and the mark in the forehead is 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 pugnacious jest against us. But they can't all be the anti-Christ.
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. And if you fool around with your own name long enough, you might find that you yourself are the anti-Christ!!
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? Probably one-third of all mankind today are descended from Shem, but does this make them Semitic in any ponderable way? 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 trying to use Charles as the anti-Christ? So what? How do we know that Satan will succeed with him? In other words, it's what the Bible says that we should keep to, not on what Satan, or Masons, might try to fulfill. I am sure that 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 British, but Mediterranean Greek.
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 referring to 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 that the Karl von Habsburg has just as much claim to an anti-Christ scripture which uses "man" as does Charles. 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 amazing "revelations" or "coincidences."
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 is supposed to make him the anti-Christ. Well, there is a dragon, and a red one at that! But is Charles the only man with such a beast on his coat of arms? You know that's not true. Yet, they stack up "evidence" such as this and make a heap so large that some are convinced that there's something to it. 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 this clinches it; especially the "wild beast" part which Ken was sure to slip in there, in his brackets, not to mention the "horn" part.
Ken and others say that there is also 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 did not see bear feet, nor anything indicating 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 that they have the twisted 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, we cannot use such symbolism to identify the anti-Christ because many use the same symbols. By the same sort of reasoning, I could proclaim a rock musician to be the anti-Christ due to the "666" and red dragon on his record cover. The Masonic indoctrination in Prince Charles might influence him into doing things that are quite anti-Christian, but this is standard for many men? 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 that train his mind in the same egotistical ways, teaching him that Lucifer is the true God of the Bible. 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 two most-important degrees in Masonry. Thus, Masonry is likely at the roots of America and wide-spread today, and all that have power in the cult can't be 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 European leader, 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 but temporary 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. Perhaps by a long shot the man thinks he is the anti-Christ, or maybe he aspires to be for some insane reason...and Diana perhaps left him for such reasons unknown to us all...but it's what the Bible says that matters in the end, not what a man may aspire to, and the Bible does not reveal a British monarch as the anti-Christ.
We 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 this void:
"Prince Charles may seem like a wimp, and lacking charisma. He is however quite athletic, an expert horseman, a qualified jet fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force, a qualified helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy, and a senior military officer in all three branches of service."
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.
Jim Searcy said:
The 42 month war may have begun March 13, 1997; however, it is not yet possible to be certain of the day or hour. We can be sure the New World Order, of opposition to the Kingdom of G-d, is in full preparation for this 42 month war and that an undeclared state of war exists today."
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, personally-obtained prophecies and/or visions.
For us to entertain Charles as the anti-Christ, it will pretty much takes a schizoid change of personality. 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 superior in the world. I suppose it is possible for any man to go mad while at the same time obtaining power to conquer the Middle East, but, certainly, we must also recognize the much greater possibility that Charles will not go mad.