And Now, the Antichrist!

The doctrine of the Antichrist may be the most misunderstood in all of eschatology. Here on the BB, posters quite often mock a media driven, fluffy, straw man Antichrist. Again, just a quick look at an Internet search, checking a few of the websites, reveals not only a lot of misinformation (that is, teaching not based on the Bible), but much hubris. In this thread I would like to take a strictly Biblical look at the Antichrist, who he will be (or is) and what he will do.

First of all, consider the word itself. It is a compound word from Greek, with the preposition anti and the word for Christ, Xristos. So it has something to do with Christ Himself. The preposition anti is defined by Friberg's Anlex (accessed through BibleWorks; the Greek font did not carry over onto the BB) as: "originally with a local sense over against, opposite; used figuratively in the NT (1) to indicate a replacement instead of, in place of (LU 11.11; MT 20.28 and MK 10.45 also belong here; JN 1.16 indicates a successive replacement); (2) to indicate one thing as equivalent to another for, as, in place of (1C 11.15); (3) in the sense of u`pe,r on behalf of, for, for the sake of (MT 17.27); (4) to indicate a cause: av. tou,tou for this reason, that is why (EP 5.31); avnqv w-n because, in return for which (LU 1.20); (5) to indicate a result avnqv w-n, implying one thing for another so then, therefore (LU 12.3).

With this in mind, the question is: Does the Antichrist oppose Christ or replace Him? Some believe he tries to become a replacement for Christ (cf Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 453). However, the NT has a different word for that: false Christ (pseudoxristos; see Matt. 24:24 & Mark 13:22). Another indication that the word means one who opposes Christ is that in ancient Greece, according to TDNT (Kittel, Vol. 9 p. Vol. 9, p. 571, footnote 500), an opposing general was called an anti-general (antistrategos). The Liddel Scott lexicon of classical Greek (through BibleWorks) has this definition for that word: "the enemy's general."

So, the Antichrist will be the final opponent of Jesus Christ.

 

There have been many antichrists, as John pointed out in 1 John 2:

"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. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

All of these have failed, just as the final Antichrist will fail.

 

I see nothing semantically either in the word or its contexts to indicate an institution or office. So I don't see the word as indicating the pope. The fact that the preposition anti is used in a compound with "general" to mean "opposing general" bears this out.

 

Sit back for an interesting ride.

 

One misconception, especially in popular media and entertainment, is that the Antichrist will rule the world. I don't think the Scripture teaches this at all. The sole passage I've found that might indicate this is when he is worshiped by the world in the Revelation of John (9 times to the Beast). However, the word for "worship" is the Greek proskuneo, meaning to physically bow down to someone or to an idol (used many times of those worshiping Christ). This indicates a religious influence by the Antichrist rather than a political ruling.

In other words, the Antichrist will represent a worldwide religion which ends up with him being physically bowed down to by all. This recalls how Nebuchadnezzar required everyone to bow to him. In history, it recalls how the pope was a spiritual ruler (with political influence) until the Reformation.

Note the following verse, showing that the Beast of Revelation will depend on the "kings of the earth": "And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army" (Rev. 19:19).

 

Here we go again. Once again I deal with the actual meanings of words in the Bible, and you then accuse me of not going to the Bible itself. This is a ridiculous, made-up false charge. If the Bible had no words in it, you might be right, but the Bible is nothing but words. If we do not understand those words, we do not understand the Bible.

Now you need to go to the Bible. Read the verses from John you just posted.

Note the tense in 2:18: "is coming." It is deponent verb erxomai in the present tense, having the imperfective verbal aspect. In other words, John was saying that Antichrist (singular) is on his way.

How can there be a class of people with no individuals? If there is a class of "doctors" are there not individuals in it?

But that is moot. The word in 2:18 has the definite article in the original Greek. That means that yes, there is one specific antichrist, an individual, in question.

No, as I have now shown, the literal meaning of the text in 1 John shows a literal individual on his way, the final Antichrist.

I am really, really sick of your accusations ("top drawer for you"? REALLY??) that I do not use much Scripture. I have just had several threads with many Scriptures going unanswered by you or any other preterists. That I don't use Scripture is just a completely false charge, and I'm sick of it.

 

You say, "needlessly dissect" words. I say, "Let's learn the actual meaning." And if you don't want to make me angry, don't insult me. I'm sick of your attitude, like the time you said something like, "If you'll just study the Scripture, someday you'll be a preterist."

So maybe you need to apologize.

Then answer my points about the verbal aspect of the present tense of erxomai, and the definite article before "antichrist." These points prove conclusively that yes, John had a future individual in mind.

You can't just state your opinion as if it were true. Deal with the points I've made.

Very well, if a class has individuals, and "antichrist" means someone who opposes Christ, then in the future there will be individuals who oppose Christ. That's a no-brainer.

 

The thing is, the reformers did not have a developed eschatology.

I feel the "opposing general" point is an excellent one to help us with the concept of the antichrist.

 

Now, notice that virtually all commentators equate John's "antichrist" with the "prince that shall come" of Daniel, the "man of sin" of 2 Thess. 2:3, and the first "beast" of Revelation. I think this is a quite valid point. The actions of these three characters are similar. We have several names for Satan, including the "red dragon" of Revelation, etc., so why not several names for his chief minion?

 

You conveniently missed the verse in question: "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18, NKJV, emphasis mine).

You miss John's point and my point. There are many antichrists, so watch yourselves. And there is one biggie still to come, so watch yourselves.

Um, no. The Greek definite article (not pronoun--are you sure you know your way around the Greek?) means that there is one particular person. As for "man of God," why would that be specifically a Hebrew usage? It's not an idiom. It does occur twice in the NT, in 1 & 2 Timothy. The first usage is "thou man of God," so it is specific to Timothy even without the article. The second usage has the article, but is a generic statement. So you have not proven anything.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The connections between these terms have been recognized across the eschatalogical board for centuries. Don't have time now to prove the connection in a more concrete way.