Posted on 01/11/2016 8:15:33 AM PST by Salvation
There is much lore about the antichrist, especially among certain Evangelicals that is often out of proportion to the attention scripture pays to the concept, and more importantly is at possible variance from what is actually and certainly taught. It easily becomes the stuff of movies and novels wherein the antichrist figure steps on the scene, deceiving many and mesmerizing the whole world with apparent miracles and a message of false peace.
But is this really what or who the Scriptures call the antichrist? I would argue not, for in order to create this picture, its artists must splice in images from the Book of Revelation and the Letter to the Thessalonians which do not likely apply to the mention of antichrist(s) in Scripture.
In fact, the use of the term "antichrist(s)" occurs only in the Johannine epistles. It does not occur in the Book of Revelation at all though many have mistaken notions that it does. There are plenty of beasts and dragons and harlots, demons and Satanic legions there, but no antichrist(s) is (are) mentioned there.
As mentioned, many also stitch the teaching of antichrist together with St. Paul’s teaching on the "man of lawlessness" who is to appear just before the end. The lawless one may well be the stuff of movies. But calling the "man of lawlessness" the antichrist may be to borrow too much from a concept that is more distinct. While it is not inauthentic to make a connection (some the Fathers seem to), neither is it necessarily correct to do so.
In this reflection on the antichrist I would be of the school of thought that it is improbable that the antichrist and the man of lawlessness are the same. In order to explain why let's first look at the occurrences of the term antichrist in St. John’s Epistles:
Note here, two things about the antichrist. First of all, St. John, writing in the First Century teaches "he" has already appeared. In calling this the "last hour" St. John and the Holy Spirit do not mean to indicate that the second coming will take place in the next 60 seconds, or even in the next few years. Rather it is a teaching that we are in the Last Age, the "Age of the Messiah," also called the "Age of the Church" where God is sending out his angels to the four winds to gather all the elect from the ends of the earth (cf Mark 4:21) Sadly as well, St. John teaches that "antichrist" has come.
But secondly, in saying that "antichrist" has come, he immediately clarifies saying that (actually) many antichrist have appeared.
And thus, St John does not seem to present the antichrist is a solitary figure who comes, but notes that there are many antichrists.
And what do these antichrists do? They perpetrate heresy, error, and false teaching. He notes in particular that heretics who deny that Jesus is the Christ, (the Messiah) are antichrists. He also terms antichrists those who deny Christ having come in the flesh.
What does it mean to deny Christ having come in the flesh? It means that these antichrists reduce the saving work of God to mere appearances, that Jesus did not actually take up a human nature but only appeared to do so. These same antichrists, by extension, reduce the Christian moral and spiritual life to mere gnostic ideas rather than a true flesh and blood, body and soul change in our lives.
Many today extend these denials of the incarnation by undermining the historicity of the Gospels, doubting or outright denying what Jesus actually said and did, his bodily resurrection, and so forth. Some of them will say that his resurrection was not a bodily resurrection, but rather that his "ideas live on." Now of course there can be no more fundamental heresy that to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. As St. Paul says, And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain....if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins....[and] we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:14-17)
Thus, St. John along with all the early Church emphatically upholds an incarnational faith. We could actually touch our God and he touched us taking up our human nature. He suffered on the cross and died. And though his suffering was tied to his human nature (for his divine nature is impassible), but the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus, hypostatically united to his human nature suffered and died for us. It was this same human nature that God raised from the dead, gloriously transformed.
John takes this theme up elsewhere when he says the Christ came in water and in blood, not in water only (cf 1 John 5:6); for a certain heretic of that day named Cerinthus, held that the second person of the Blessed Trinity departed just before the passion of Jesus set in. John says, "No!" and insists that just as at his baptism the divine Nature of Jesus was affirmed "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," it is no less true during the shedding of his blood on Calvary, for the inspired word of God records the Centurion, on seeing the manner of Jesus' death as saying, "Surely this was the Son of God!" (Mat 27:54). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, though of two natures is one person, did in fact die suffer and die for us.
Thus the essence of antichrist or St. John was anyone who denied Jesus come in the flesh; any who would relegate his presence among us to mere appearances, or his teachings to mere abstractions or ideals rather than transformative realities.
By extension it can be argued that the term "antichrist" refers to all deceivers, though only logically, not textually. St. John does not specifically indicate he means it this broadly. But in this wider sense all heresy pertains to antichrist since Jesus Christ is the truth. And to deny the truth Jesus teaches through his apostles is to deny Christ himself, who is truth itself, and thus to be "antichrist."
Perhaps this is not the stuff of movies and novels. Sorry! And too bad because the title "antichrist" is so catchy! But this brings us to the man of lawlessness (also called the lawless one).
What or who is the "man of lawlessness" that Paul mentions and how is he related to the antichrist? As already stated, I do not think there is a connection. To see why lets consider what St. Paul teaches:
Note the following crucial differences between antichrist and the lawless one:
Jesus too speaks of those who will lead many astray, though he speaks in the plural and is likely referring to the First Century and the travails leading up to the War with the Romans in 70 AD: For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
So, as you can see there are a lot of moving parts here as well as a lot of singulars and plurals to sort out, and time frames to consider. Permit the following conclusions from me.
I hope I haven't toyed with your movie script version too much. But Scripture is nuanced in these matters and we do well to avoid reducing its teachings to popular concepts and catchy notions.
Scripture does speak to us of end times and of difficult times preceding them. But the information given is often in general, even cryptic terms. It is as if Scripture wants to say, be ready, you don't need (or want to know) all the details. Just be ready and know that when they set in, Christ has already won the battle! Viva Christo Rey.
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Multiple Choice:
Obama
Hillary
Soros
All of the above (you can add up to 663 more).
Islam
Notic that only George Soros remains seated in the photo . . . of course, BO is too stupid and fragile to be the anti-Christ. Soros, or those like him, must have another plan.
Mohammed and his progeny are the Antichrist, if there is such a thing as an individual entity. Biblically, Antichrist is not capitalized. It simply is those who oppose Christianity, especially those who are or were ostensibly Christians and strive to warp the belief of Christians into something else.
ping
Thanks
Anti- Greek strongs 473
1.over against, opposite to, before
2.for, instead of, in place of (something)
instead of
for
for that, because
wherefore, for this causeanti-
By definitions given in a concordance, Anti Christ need not be opposite or opposed. It can be an instead of Christ. Or an in place of Christ..
And Scripture would define Islam and Rabbinic Judaism as ‘antichrist’ very clearly.
And then those who don’t believe He came in the flesh also would be ‘antichrist’..
And those can be within Christianity.. And that is a little trickier because it depends on how one defines ‘flesh’.
And history shows that the first protestant reformers were unafraid to call the papacy the seat of ‘antichrist’ or the popes, antichrists.
That is a tangled web of confusion.. Which is why Satan plays in all religion.
Mohammad
The “man of lawlessness” could definitely be more than one person. It could be a sum of wicked ones with depraved natures and minds.
“For the mystery of lawlessness (that hidden principle of rebellion against constituted authority) is already at work in the world...” (2 Thess. 2:7a)
Those wicked people (the lawless one) might be given great power through the occult or other forms of Satanic power to hold much sway over the multitudes with “wonders” and “seduction to evil”:
“The coming [of the lawless one] is through the activity and working of Satan and will be attended by great power and with all sorts of [pretended] miracles and signs and delusive marvels [all of them] lying wonders... And by unlimited seduction to evil” (2 Thess. 2:9, 10a)
Another Scripture gives the condition of hearts in the last days:
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!”
(2 Timothy 3: 1-5)
Islam is certainly the Antichrist religion.
Mohammed was most likely Antichrist’s false prophet.
- Be aware! Islam has a “False Christ” who will fill the
bill for many; but that “Jesus” ain’t Jesus Christ (Yeshua).
Consider the FRUIT of Islam, which is NOT from a good
tree!
Thanks you, Salvation, for the great article, and thank you, Cedar, for these Bible verses.
Here’s an interesting link on how to battle Boko Haram: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83KIv9tlC0Y
What a tragic thing for one of God's own creations, the "light bearer," to succumb to the first and worst of the seven deadly sins: PRIDE.
Good article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.