What is an antichrist?

What is the meaning of the word “antichrist”?
The word has picked up a number of associations, through the speculations of the Middle Ages and through Hollywood fantasy, and all this baggage only tends to confuse discussion on the subject.
So there’s a need for us to go back to first principles.
We can go back to the roots of the word, and we can also go back to the man who first used it.

Looking at the roots, the starting-point should be that “Anti-“.

The basic meaning of the Greek ANTI is “standing opposite”.
There is a range of mountains called the Lebanon range, and the mountain range on the opposite side of the valley has been known, since ancient times, as the Anti-Lebanon.
“Standing opposite” leads on to “standing in place of”, as a successor, a substitute, or something given in exchange.
Both “standing opposite” and “replacing” can then suggest “hostile towards”, which is the more standard meaning in English usage.

So an “anti-Christ” would be a counterpart to Christ, in the sense of being a rival.

Jesus gave a warning that “Many will come in my name, saying “I am the Christ”- Matthew ch24 v5.
In other words, they would be offering themselves as substitutes.
Later he calls these people “false Christs” [PSEUDOCHRISTOI], but they would certainly qualify as “antichrists” in terms of the definition I’ve just given.

Then there’s the description found in the letters of John, the only place in the New Testament where the word itself appears.
There’s a reasonable chance that he coined the word in the first place, though it doesn’t necessarily follow.
(Shakespeare used to be credited with the “invention” of a whole army of English words, including “schoolboy”, but he was really just the first person who used them in print.)

John begins with the portentous declaration, “Children, it is [a] last hour” (1 John ch2 v18).
Meaning a time of crisis and decision. Arguably, that “hour” has been in place ever since the crucifixion.
“You have heard that antichrist is coming”.
“You have heard” indicates that there’s been teaching on the subject.
“He is coming”- this is also said about Christ. As when Paul says that those who belong to Christ will be raised “when he comes” (1 Corinthians ch15 v23).
So this wording helps to present him as an imitation Christ.

Then he says they can see for themselves that many antichrists have emerged.
He’s referring to a number of individuals, who used to be members of the Christian community, but have now left it.
They qualify as antichrists because of their teaching. So this teaching needs to be examined.

They deny the truth which the Holy Spirit has taught us (v20).
Instead they promote a lie (v22) which consists of a denial that Jesus is the Christ.
Putting it another way, they “deny the Son”.

The best way to understand these denials is to glance at the positive statement which John puts up against their teaching later in the letter;

“We have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God”- ch4 vv14-15
What John means by “Son of God” was laid out at the beginning of his gospel;
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father”- John ch1 vv14-15
So the denial of “the Son” is the rejection of the teaching that he was the Word of God made flesh and “coming into the world” to dwell amongst us.
This amounts to rejecting the teaching that he was sent by the Father as the Saviour of the world, and therefore denying that “Jesus is the Christ”.

John adds that anyone who denies the Son is also denying the Father at the same time.
The Father belongs only to those who “confess” the Son (ch2 vv22-23).
This would probably be on the grounds that the Father is defined by having a Son, so that you can’t have one without the other.

Another definition of “the deceiver and the antichrist” is the failure to “confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (ch4 vv1-3), or to “acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John v7).
In principle, there are two possible ways of doing this.
You can acknowledge the coming of Christ, but deny that he was “in the flesh”.
Or you can acknowledge that Jesus was “in the flesh”, but deny that he came from anywhere else.
That is, you can deny his full humanity, or you can deny his full divinity, because “coming in the flesh” implies them both.

The modern convention is to assume that John is talking about the first option, an early version of the later gnostic theories.
However, I’m not convinced that this assumption suits the earlier claim that these people “deny the Son”. It seems to me that anyone who denies the arrival of Christ “in the flesh” is acknowledging a Son, but refusing to identify him with a human Jesus.
The comments in the second chapter would be more appropriate if these people were saying “Jesus wasin the flesh, but not coming as the Christ, as the Word sent out into the world”.

The false teaching in ch4 is attributed to false prophets, inspired by spirits which are “not of God” (vv1-3).
Just as Christians are agents and fore-runners of the expected Christ, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit-
In the same way, the “many antichrists” are agents and fore-runners of the expected antichrist, through the guidance of the multiple spirits.
The two systems run in parallel.

However, there is no single “spirit of antichrist”, as a direct equivalent.
There is a phrase in v3 which everybody translates as “This is the spirit of antichrist”, but the word “spirit” is not there in the Greek at all.
The AV, at least, is honest enough to place it in italics, to show that it’s filling out the text.
The original “the” is followed by nothing but “of antichrist”, so the best interpretation is “this whole thing belongs to antichrist” or “this is the work of antichrist”.
That work is what is “now in the world already”.

But why should “the work of antichrist” involve denying the Incarnation?
It could be simply an aspect of the hostility.
It would be an advantage, to an opponent of Christ, to undermine any teaching related to Christ, especially a teaching so central to the gospel.

There is also this consideration, that the full Christian doctrine of the Incarnation makes it more difficult for someone to present himself as a convincing imitator and substitute.
There is too much to live up to.
But that obstacle can be overcome if the teaching of the Incarnation has already been watered down.
If the original Christ has been reduced, for example, from “Incarnate Word” to “man with a special endowment of the Sprit”, it becomes easier and more plausible for someone else to claim to be another of the same kind.
This was effectively the line taken by Sun Myung Moon.

So the “antichrist” which John’s readers had been taught to expect would be a counterpart and rival of the Christ in whom they believed.
He would perhaps be presenting himself as the returned Christ or as a new version of Christ.
And he would have been promoting teaching which undermined the work of Christ, which would certainly include the undermining of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

To be concise, in the context of anti meaning opposite, some schools of thought suggest that the antichrist would be a very rational opposition to the rather restricted authoritarian doctrine of Christianity.

a reply to: gottaknow
"Opposition to the doctrine of Christianity".
I suppose that's the same definition as John''s, except that you add adjectives which imply that this is a good thing.
Obviously John would not agree with you there.

Well, regarding my example, it depends on who's really telling the truth, doesn't it?

Here's a 5 year old thread that discusses it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And some images that depict what I mean:

a reply to: gottaknow
Well, that's material for another thread.
In this one, I won't be getting into the question of whether God is right or wrong.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Historically, Protestants have always believed
the AC was the office of Papacy (the Holy See).
Seventh-Day Adventist still teach this.

Then there is Nero who is infamously known as
the Emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned".

In 422, Augustine of Hippo wrote about 2 Thessalonians 2:1–11, where he believed Paul mentioned the coming of the Antichrist. Though he rejects the theory, Augustine mentions that many Christians believed that Nero was the Antichrist or would return as the Antichrist. He wrote, so that in saying, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,"[203] he alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as the deeds of Antichrist
en.wikipedia.org...

Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood your question.

a reply to: wasaka
Yes, both of those theories involve identifying the Beast of Revelation with the "coming" antichrist, which is plausible, but not actually stated in Revelation.

My theory is that Revelation is addessing two readerships at the same time, his own contemporaries and the later church.
If Nero was "the Beast" for his contemporaries, that need not rule out another Beast for the church of the future.

Amongst other things, one major objection to identifying the papacy with the Beast is that Protestants have also wanted to identify the papacy with the Harlot.
The Beast and the Harlot are different and separate entities, and the papacy cannot be both.

a reply to: gottaknow

Well, if he offers the antithesis of Christ, then I guess when Christ says love thy neighbor as thyself, the antichrist version would be hate thy neighbor as thyself.

Sounds perfectly fun.

a reply to: ketsuko
On the other hand, if he was too obviously opposite, it would be more difficult for him to offer himself as a "false Christ" in terms of the warning that Jesus gave.
There would have to be just enough similarity of some kind to make the deception plausible.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ketsuko
On the other hand, if he was too obviously opposite, it would be more difficult for him to offer himself as a "false Christ" in terms of the warning that Jesus gave.
There would have to be just enough similarity of some kind to make the deception plausible.

Oh but therein lies the rub, love and hate are oftentimes far more subtle and deceptive than many think they are. It's easy to look at an action that seems benevolent and mistake it for the hateful thing it is.

Good post op ..I wanted to drop this vid off for others that may have bought into the anti-Christ teaching that Islam is the anti-Christ on the Armageddon You Tube channel . At the time that I had watched it I though it to be believable but this vid shows it not to be so and really exposes the mind behind it ..peace

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Thank you for adding that link.
The fact that so many wild theories get generated only underlines the importance of understanding exactly what the Bible means by "antichrist" before trying to identify one.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: gottaknow

Well, if he offers the antithesis of Christ, then I guess when Christ says love thy neighbor as thyself, the antichrist version would be hate thy neighbor as thyself.

Sounds perfectly fun.

I'm stepping away from this thread, but I couldn't resist responding to this.

Again, it depends how you look at it. To hate your neighbor as yourself is almost the same thing as to love in this regard. You don't hate yourself very much(self-esteem issues of people aside) so hating your neighbor as much you hate yourself is to be pretty cool with them in general.

This, with the consideration that we often find what we dislike about others is an extension of what we dislike about ourselves gives that a whole new perspective.

a reply to: gottaknow

There is a world of difference between simply disliking something and true hate. If you don't know that, then you've never actually felt true hatred, IMO.

I have once in my life, and it was the single ugliest feeling I've ever experienced, and I would do just about anything to avoid feeling anything near that level of vitriol again. I've walked away from things and even people to avoid going near that emotion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think that that the Antichrist will be a follower of "his time" in the sense that he will embrace humanities humanism. Justify our weaknesses in sin in a clever yet subtle way. All the while he will claim to know the secrets of the universe and how to be in "perfect" tune with your body and the cosmos also connecting science and spiritualism together. Which in itself is not a bad thing, it's just wisdom and knowledge(hence bonus).

He will perhaps promote love/kindness/care/happiness and all that is good but he won't place it's importance high enough. Thus he will be unhappy inside always wanting more and more and it will show in his deeds(thus reflecting two of jesus teachings; 1. If you don't have "all that is good"(kærleikur in icelandic) in first place at all times you don't have nothing. 2. Ones faith is revealed through deeds).

He might, when I ponder it, first appear when there is a time of urgency promising unity and well being for all through some miracle of workmanship. Like one world government or something.

Thus he will blind many at first, and some to great length. Even some of the elect, but most of the elect will promptly or eventually come around.

This is what I let my mind wander to when I think; 'how would someone try to be like the messiah but actually be the greatest deceiver?'

Father in the one true heaven bless you for your good work DISRAELI and peace be upon you.

to edit and add on: Though if we go into metaphysicality and look at him as a force in people. I can see him working at great lengths already deceiving people into believing that all kinds of evil deeds are justifiable. And same for the messiah, I can see him working at great lengths already convincing people into believing that all kinds of good deeds are just. I am to marry my messiah in spirit as an earthly bride marries her earthly groom. And if he shows up in flesh again, I will know him by his deeds.

a reply to: ketsuko

I feel as though you've misunderstood my post. Yes, big difference between the two words.
How much do you hate yourself? How much do people hate themselves? Not much if at all, right?

Hate others as you hate yourself. You don't hate yourself, therefore, you don't hate others.

That's my last time phrasing that. Get it, or don't.

a reply to: Sump3
That you for that contribution. That seems to be a very plausible way that it could work out- worth pondering on.
One thing worth remembering- according to Jesus, the fact that he "appears on earth" at all, as a man like the rest of us (instead of "with all the glory of God") would be proof that he was not the real thing.

a reply to: DISRAELI

What is the meaning of the word “antichrist”?

An Antichrist is a created person of flesh and blood whereas a Demon or Satan is only a spiritual entity and not of flesh and blood.

In my understanding there are many Antichrists the same as there are many Satan's. Lucifer is simply a name given to a Satan. All of the angels who were cast out of heaven before the garden episode are imprisoned in Sheol as well as the 200 who mated with women and produced antediluvian giants are bound in the earth. According to Enoch the race of Elioud's came from the Nephillym and the race of Nephillym came from the Giants who were the procreation between human women and angelic entities. All three of these races were destroyed in the flood of Noah and were bound for seventy generations and then released.

Nevertheless these are the spirits that are freed in the earth today and they are not of angelic nor human procreation but are Satan's of their own class. these are the Satan's which Jesus fought during His ministry and that torment the human race today. According to my understanding these Satan's are not antichrists but are spirits. The Antichrist that comes to show itself as a god will be a human and not a spirit.

Interesting thread. I would suspect the anti-Christ is more an idea than it is a single individual.

Maybe it is the idea of consumerism and turning our backs on nature or living like there are no consequences to our actions.

I've got my money on the world's leaders using their wealth and power to try and take over other countries.