12/1/23
Anti-Christ:
First, let’s examine the Greek; it’s from anti, against, and Cristos, Christ: an opposer of Christ, found only in John’s epistles, and there defined to be, collectively, all who deny that Jesus is Messiah, and that the Messiah has come in the flesh. The notion of the Antichrist as the power opposing the Messiah’s reign can be traced back to the Old Testament. Its origin is found in Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the doom of Gog and Magog.
By the old saying, “When need is sorest, help is nearest.” Previous to the Messiah’s reign, the Jews conceived that national adversity must first be experienced, and only then would the agent of Satan appear, one who must be overcome before their prosperity is restored, speaking of the coming Antichrist. The idea is adopted in the N.T., although the term Antichrist occurs in no place of Scripture except in the First and Second Epistles of John.
1 John 2:22, “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.”
1 John 4:3, “And every spirit that confesseth NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
2 John 7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
From such passages as the prophecies of the Savior, Matthew 24, and Mark 13, it has been inferred by some that probably the great truth which this conception was intended was to shadow forth was similar to that illustrated in the life of “the man of sorrows: — that only through tribulation and strife could the reign of the Messiah be established, that Christ’s kingdom, like Christ himself, could be made perfect only through suffering. And with this language of John in his epistles and of Paul in passages which embody the same idea, is supposed to agree. Nor is it regarded as a fatal objection to this opinion that the Antichristian power or element associated with the tremendous heathen capital Rome symbolically designated Babylon in the Apocalypse.
What class of person John had in view is unknown; most likely, it was the Jewish adversaries. Antichrist, the adversary of the Messiah, a most pestilent being, to appear just before the Messiah’s advent, concerning whom the Jews had conceived diverse opinions, derived partly from Daniel 11:35, “And some of them (Jews) of understanding shall fall, to try them and to purge and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for a time appointed.”
Daniel 7:25, “And he shall speak great words against the Most-High (God of both Jew and Gentiles) and shall wear (persecute) the saints (the Jews) of the Most-High and think to change times and laws: and they (the Jews) shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
Daniel 8:25, “And through his (antichrists) policy also he shall cause craft (deceit) to prosper to his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he (antichrist) shall also stand up against the Prince of princes (Jesus); and he shall be broken without hand.”
John uses the term antichrist five times; he employs it of the corrupt power and influence hostile to Christian interests, especially that which is at work in false teachers who have come from the bosom of the church and are engaged in disseminating error. The Antichrist is about to appear before the return of Christ. But for now, that position is being fulfilled by the many false teachers worthy of the character and title of Antichrist. In Paul’s writing and the book of Revelation, the idea, but not the name of the Antichrist, can be found, yet Paul’s conception differs from that of John. Paul teaches that the Antichrist will be an individual man of evil character, instigated by the devil to try to palm himself off as God; 2 Thessalonians 3-1.
John discovers the power of the Antichrist in the sway of imperial Rome and his person in the emperor Nero, soon to return from the dead: Revelation 13-17. But this opinion is now rejected. The idea of the Antichrist early became associated with that of the Millennium, retaining a form very similar to that which it had among the Jews before the advent of the Messiah, and popular opinion was always sought to find for it some actual and definite embodiment. In the 5th century, the prevalent opinion among Protestants was that Antichrist is the Roman Catholic Church; an idea entertained even at an earlier period, as, for instance, by Ludwig of Bavaria, regarding Pope John 22ed, by Occam, Wickliffe, and his pupil Cobham, and the Bohemian reformer Janow, and which seems to have prevailed to a considerable extent among the Hullites and other opponents of Rome.
Roman Catholic writers have strenuously opposed this opinion. In his comments on the Apocalypse, Bossuet ably advocates the view that Pagan Rome was Antichrist. The opinions of Roman Catholics, however, are much divided upon the subject; many of them maintain that the Antichrist is yet to come and “to raise the last persecution,” as “no one has yet appeared to whom we can apply the character which the infallible Word of God declares shall be that of the real Antichrist.” Keenan’s Catechism:
The opinion prevalent among Protestants depends upon the identification of the Antichrist with the mystical Babylon of the Apocalypse, and with other symbolic representations in the book, of a power opposed to the cause of Christ, and also with the “Wicked” one the “Man of Sin,” and “Son of Perdition,” in 2 Thessalonians 2. Thus, it maintained that a definite embodiment of the idea of the Antichrist is sought in history and found in the Church of Rome or the Papal power. And Protestants refer to the gradual growth and development of the errors which they regard as calumniating in the Church of Rome, as accordant with the declaration of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” and with that of John “even now are there many antichrists.”
There have been, however, among the Protestants eminent opponents of this opinion, one being Grotius. His view was singular, that Caligula, the Roman emperor, was Antichrist. In the Greek Church, the term Antichrist has been understood as especially applicable to Mohammed or to the dominion of the Turks and Saracens. Almost every event, including the arrival of the years 1000 and 2000, the beginning of the Crusades, the “black death” and other plagues in the 14th century, the career of Napoleon in 1805, the political movement of 1848 and 1849, the World War 1, and World War 2, Adolf Hitler, etc. have suggested a new interpretation of the passages of Scripture regarding Antichrist.
Saracen was the general name of the Arabian tribes when Mahomet appeared at the beginning of the seventh century. Their religion at this time was Sabianism, or the worship of the sun, moon, etc, variously transformed by the different tribes and intermingled with some Jewish and Christian maxims and traditions. These Arabian tribes were generally at variance with each other, as they are today. Yet, Mahommed constructed a mighty empire, converted the relapsed Ishmaelites into good Mussulmen (followers of Mahommed), united the jarring tribes under one banner, and supplied to them what was wanting in personal courage by the rays of religious zeal. Out of this band of little-known and little-feared followers, Mohammad raised an armed multitude that proved the scourge of the world.
Phil LaSpino www.seekfirstwisdom.com