Difference between revisions of "Antichrist"

<p> (ἀντίχριστος) </p> <p> The word is found in the NT only in &nbsp;1 John 2:18; &nbsp;1 John 2:22; &nbsp;1 John 4:3, &nbsp;2 John 1:7, but the idea further appears in the Gospels, the [[Pauline]] Epistles, and above all in the Apocalypse. It is not, however, an idea original to Christianity, but an adaptation of [[Jewish]] conceptions which, as Bousset has shown ( <i> The [[Antichrist]] [[Legend]] </i> ), had developed before the time of Christ into a full-grown Antichrist legend of a hostile counterpart of the [[Messiah]] who would make war against Him but whom He would finally overthrow. The NT references to the subject cannot be rightly appreciated without some previous consideration of the corresponding ideas that were present in [[Judaism]] before they were taken over by Christianity. </p> <p> <b> 1. The Antichrist of Judaism. </b> -Although the word ‘Antichrist’ does not occur till we come to the Johannine Epistles, we have many evidences in pre-Christian Jewish literature, canonical and extra-canonical, that there was a widely spread idea of a supreme adversary who should rise up against God, His [[Kingdom]] and people, or His Messiah. The strands that went to the composition of the idea were various and strangely interwoven, and much obscurity still hangs over the subject. But it seems possible to distinguish three chief influences that went to the shaping of the Jewish conception as it existed at the time of Christ. </p> <p> (1) Earliest of all was the ancient <i> dragon-myth </i> of the [[Babylonian]] Creation-epic, with its representation of the struggle of Tiâmat, the princess of chaos and darkness, against Marduk, the god of order and light. The myth appears to have belonged to the common stock of Semitic ideas, and must have become familiar to the Hebrews from their earliest settlement in Canaan, if indeed it was not part of the ancestral tradition carried with them from their original Aramaean home. In any case, it would be revived in their minds through their close contact with the Babylonian mythology during exilic and post-exilic times. Traces of this dragon-myth appear here and there in the OT, <i> e.g. </i> in the story of the [[Temptation]] in [[Genesis]] 3, where, as in &nbsp;Revelation 12:9; &nbsp;Revelation 20:2, the serpent=the dragon; and in the later apocalyptic literature a dragon represents the hostile powers that rise up in opposition to God and His Kingdom ( <i> Pss. Sol. </i> 2:29). But it was characteristic of the forward look of Prophetism and Messianism that the idea of a conflict between God and the dragon was transferred from cosmogony to eschatology and represented as a culminating episode of the last days (&nbsp;Isaiah 27:1, Daniel 7). </p> <p> (2) Side by side with the dragon-myth must be set the <i> Beliar </i> ( <i> [[Belial]] </i> ) <i> conception </i> , a contribution to Jewish thought from the side of [[Persian]] dualism, with its idea of an adversary in whom is embodied not merely, as in the Babylonian Creation-story, the natural forces of chaos and darkness, but all the hostile powers of moral evil. In &nbsp;1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan is evidently represented as God’s adversary, just as we find him in later Jewish and primitive [[Christian]] thought. And in the interval between OT and NT Beliar is frequently used as a synonym for Satan, the [[Devil]] or arch-demon ( <i> e.g. </i> <i> Jubilees </i> , 15; cf. &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:15). The Beliar idea was a much later influence than the dragon-myth, for Babylonian religion offers no real parallel to a belief in the Devil, and Cheyne’s suggested derivation of the name from <i> Belili </i> , the goddess of the under world ( <i> Encyclopaedia Biblica </i> , article‘Belial’), has little to recommend it. But a subsequent fusion of Beliar with the dragon was very natural, and we have a striking illustration of it when in &nbsp;Wisdom of [[Solomon]] 2:24 and elsewhere the serpent of the Temptation is identified with the Devil. Cf. &nbsp;Revelation 12:9; &nbsp;Revelation 20:2, where ‘the dragon, the old serpent,’ is explained to be ‘the Devil and Satan.’ </p> <p> (3) But <i> the development of the Messianic hope </i> in Judaism was a more determinative influence than either of those already mentioned. The Jewish Antichrist was very far from being a mere precipitate of Babylonian mythology and Iranian eschatology. It was, above all, a counterpart of the Messianic idea, as that was derived from the prophets and evolved under the experiences of Jewish national history. Ezekiel’s prophecy of the overthrow of [[Gog]] and [[Magog]] (Ezekiel 38); Zechariah’s vision of the destruction of the destroyers of [[Jerusalem]] (Zechariah 14); above all, the representation in Daniel, with reference to [[Antiochus]] Epiphanes, of a world-power that waxed great even to the host of heaven (&nbsp;Daniel 8:10), and trod the sanctuary under foot (&nbsp;Daniel 8:13), and stood up against the Prince of princes until it was finally ‘broken without hand’ (&nbsp;Daniel 8:25)-all contributed to the idea of a great coming conflict with the powers of a godless world before the [[Divine]] Kingdom could be set up. And when, by a process or synthesis, the scattered elements of Messianic prophecy began to gather round the figure of a personal Messiah, a King who should represent [[Jahweh]] upon earth, it was natural that the various utterances of OT prophecy regarding an evil power which was hostile to God and His Kingdom and people should also be combined in the conception of a personal adversary. Ezekiel’s frequent references to Gog (chs. 38, 39) would lend themselves to this, and so would the picture in Daniel of the little horn magnifying itself even against the prince of the host (&nbsp;Daniel 8:11). And the preoccupation of the later Judaism with utterances like these, sharpened as it was by hatred of the heathen conquerors not merely as political enemies but as enemies of Jahweh and His Kingdom, would render all the easier that process of personalizing an Antichrist over against the Christ which appears to have completed itself within the sphere of Judaism (cf. <i> Apoc. Bar </i> . 40, <i> Asc. Is. </i> 4:9-11). </p> <p> <b> 2. Antichrist in the NT. </b> -Deriving from Judaism, [[Christianity]] would naturally carry the Antichrist tradition with it as part of its inheritance. That it actually did so Bousset has shown by a comprehensive treatment of the later Christian exegetical and apologetic literature, which evidently rests on a tradition that is only partially dependent on the NT ( <i> op. cit. </i> ; cf. <i> Encyclopaedia Biblica </i> i. 180ff.). But, so far as the NT is concerned, the earlier Antichrist tradition is taken over with important changes, due to the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and especially to the differences in their conception of the Messiah Himself. At the same time it must be noticed that nothing like a single consistent presentation of the Antichrist idea is given by the NT as a whole. [[Elements]] of the conception appear in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, and the Johannine Epistles; but in each group of writings it is treated differently and with more or less divergence from the earlier Jewish forms. </p> <p> (1) <i> In the [[Gospel]] </i> .-In the Synoptic [[Gospels]] it is everywhere apparent that Jesus recognized the existence of a kingdom of evil under the control of a supreme personality, variously called the Devil (&nbsp;Matthew 4:1; &nbsp;Matthew 13:39, etc.), Satan (&nbsp;Matthew 4:10; &nbsp;Matthew 12:26, &nbsp;Luke 10:18, etc.), or [[Beelzebub]] (&nbsp;Matthew 12:24 ff.||), who sought to interfere with His own Messianic mission (&nbsp;Matthew 4:1-11; &nbsp;Matthew 16:23||), and whose works He had come to destroy (&nbsp;Mark 1:24; &nbsp;Mark 1:34; &nbsp;Mark 3:11-12; &nbsp;Mark 3:15, etc.; cf. &nbsp;Hebrews 2:14). But from all the crude and materialistic elements of the earlier tradition His teaching is entirely free. In the reference to the ‘abomination of desolation’ standing in the holy place (&nbsp;Matthew 24:15; cf. &nbsp;Mark 13:14, &nbsp;Luke 21:20), which occurs in the great eschatological discourse, some critics have seen a parallel to &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and an evident allusion to the Jewish Antichrist tradition; but they do so on the presumption that the words were not spoken by Jesus Himself and are to be attributed to a redactor of the original source. If they wore uttered by our Lord, it seems most probable that they portended not any apocalypse of a personal Antichrist, but the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies-a calamity which He had already foreshadowed as coming upon the city because of its rejection of Himself (&nbsp;Matthew 23:37 f.). For the adversaries of the Son of Man, the real representatives of the Antichrist spirit in His eyes, were the false [[Christs]] and false prophets by whom many should be deceived (&nbsp;Matthew 24:5; &nbsp;Matthew 24:24)-in other words, the champions of that worldly idea of the coming Kingdom which He had always rejected (&nbsp;Matthew 4:1 ff; &nbsp;Matthew 16:23, &nbsp;John 6:15), but to which the Jewish nation obstinately clung. </p> <p> (2) <i> In the Pauline [[Epistles]] </i> .-A familiarity on the part of St. Paul with the Antichrist tradition is suggested when he asks in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:15, ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ and when he speaks in &nbsp;Colossians 2:15 of Christ triumphing over ‘the principalities and powers.’ This familiarity becomes evident in ‘the little apocalypse’ of &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, where he introduces the figure of the ‘man of sin,’ or more correctly ‘man of lawlessness.’ Nestle has shown ( <i> Expository Times </i> xvi. [1904-5] 472) that the Beliar-Satan conception underlies this whole passage, with its thought of an opponent of Christ, or Antichrist, whom the Lord at last shall ‘slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming’ (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:8). But the distinctive character of this Pauline view of the Antichrist is that, while features in the picture are evidently taken from the description of Antiochus [[Epiphanes]] in Daniel (cf. &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:4 with &nbsp;Daniel 7:25; &nbsp;Daniel 11:36), the Antichrist is conceived of, not after the fashion of the later Judaism as a heathen potentate and oppressor, but as a false Messiah from within the circle of Judaism itself, who is to work by means of false signs and lying wonders, and so to turn men’s hearts away from that love of the truth which brings salvation (&nbsp;Daniel 11:9). See, further, Man of Sin. </p> <p> (3) <i> In the [[Apocalypse]] </i> .-As follows naturally both from its subject and from its literary form, the Apocalypse is more permeated than any other book in the NT with the idea of the Antichrist. For its subject is the speedy return of Christ to subdue His enemies and set up His Kingdom (&nbsp;Revelation 1:7; &nbsp;Revelation 2:16; &nbsp;Revelation 3:11, etc.), and its form is an adaptation to Christianity of the ideas and imagery of those Jewish Apocalypses, from Daniel onwards, which were chiefly responsible for the growth of the Christian Antichrist conception. It would be out of place to enter here into any discussion of the conflicting interpretations of the symbolism of the dragon and the beasts that appear and reappear from ch. 11 to the end of the book (see articles Apocalypse, Dragon). But in ch. 11 ‘the beast that cometh up out of the abyss’ was evidently suggested by the dragon-myth as embodied in the Jewish Antichrist tradition, while the ‘great red dragon’ of &nbsp;Revelation 12:3, who is also described as ‘the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan’ (&nbsp;Revelation 12:9), and who is clearly represented as the Antichrist (&nbsp;Revelation 12:4-5; &nbsp;Revelation 12:17), reproduces both the mythical dragon and the later Beliar-Satan conception, now fused into one appalling figure. Again, the scarlet-coloured beast of &nbsp;Revelation 13:1-10 and the realm of the beast in ch. 17 are described in language which recalls the apocalyptic imagery of Daniel (see esp. ch. 7), and clearly applies to a hostile and persecuting world-power represented by its ruler. In Daniel that power was the kingdom of the Seleucidae under Antiochus Epiphanes; here it is very plainly indicated as the Roman [[Empire]] (&nbsp;Revelation 17:3; &nbsp;Revelation 17:9; &nbsp;Revelation 17:18) with the [[Emperor]] at its head (&nbsp;Revelation 13:6-8). But to these pre-Christian forms of the Antichrist tradition-the dragon, Satan, and a hostile world-power-the Apocalypse contributes two others which are peculiar to Christianity and which play a large part in the Christian tradition of later times. </p> <p> The first of these is found in the application to Christian ideas of the Antichrist of the contemporary <i> Nero-saga </i> , with its dream of a [[Nero]] Redivivus who should come back to the world from the realms of the dead (cf. <i> Sib. Or. </i> iv. 119ff.; Suetonius, <i> Nero </i> , 47; Augustine, <i> de Civ. Dei </i> , xx. 19). That Nero is referred to in &nbsp;Revelation 13:18 is most probable, the number 666 being the equivalent of Nero [[Caesar]] [[(Νερων Καισαρ]] ) when written in Heb. characters (נרון קסר). And the legend of his return from the under world of the dead explains in the most natural way the healing of the beast’s death-stroke (&nbsp;Revelation 13:3; &nbsp;Revelation 13:12) and the statement that it ‘shall ascend out of the bottomless pit … and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come’ (&nbsp;Revelation 17:8). See also articleApocalypse. </p> <p> The second contribution was the idea of <i> the false prophet </i> (&nbsp;Revelation 16:13; &nbsp;Revelation 19:20; &nbsp;Revelation 20:10), who is to be identified with ‘another beast’ of &nbsp;Revelation 13:11 ff. It is most probable that the false prophet represents the Imperial priesthood as propagandists of the Caesar-cult, but it seems not unlikely that elements in the representation are taken from the legend that had grown up around the name of Simon Magus (cf. Justin Martyr, <i> Apol </i> . i. 26, 56; Irenaeus, <i> c. Haer </i> , i. 23). To the early Church, Simon with his magic arts and false miracles was the arch-heretic and the father of all heresy, and suggestions of his legendary figure loom out from the description of the second beast (&nbsp;Revelation 13:13-15), even while the author attributes to it functions and powers that belong more properly to the ministers of the Emperor-worship (&nbsp;Revelation 13:12). </p> <p> (4) <i> In the Johannine Epistles </i> .-In these writings, where the word ‘Antichrist’ appears for the first time, the idea is spiritualized as nowhere else in the NT except in the teaching of Jesus. The Antichrist is not, as in the Apocalypse, a material world-power threatening the Church from without, but a spirit of false doctrine rising up from within (&nbsp;1 John 2:19). It is true that Antichrist is spoken of as still to come (&nbsp;1 John 2:18; &nbsp;1 John 4:3), so that some culminating manifestation is evidently expected-probably in a definite personal form. But even now, it is said, there are many antichrists (&nbsp;1 John 2:18; cf. &nbsp;2 John 1:7), and the spirit of Antichrist is already in the world (&nbsp;1 John 4:3). And the very essence of that sprit is the denial of ‘the Father and the Son’ (&nbsp;1 John 2:22), <i> i.e. </i> the refusal to acknowledge the Son as well as the Father; more explicitly it is the refusal to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (&nbsp;1 John 4:2-3, &nbsp;2 John 1:7). The spirit of Antichrist, in other words, is a spirit of heresy-such heresy as flourished in Asia Minor towards the close of the 1st century through the doctrines of [[Cerinthus]] ( <i> q.v. [Note: quod vide, which see.] </i> ). </p> <p> When the NT utterances regarding the Antichrist are looked at in their variety and as a whole, it is difficult to derive from them any justification for the view that the Church should expect the advent of a personal Antichrist as an individual embodiment of evil. The NT authors were evidently influenced in their treatment of the subject by contemporary situations as well as by an inheritance of ancient traditions. To St. Paul, writing out of his own experience of Jewish persecution and Roman justice and protection, Judaism was the ‘man of lawlessness,’ and Rome the beneficent restraining power. To the Apocalyptist, writing to a Church which had known Nero’s cruelty and now under [[Domitian]] was passing through the flames once more, Antichrist was the Roman Empire represented by a ruler who was hostile to Christianity because it refused to worship him as a god. In the Johannine Epistles, Antichrist is not a persecuting power but a heretical spirit, present in the world already but destined to come in fuller power. The ultimate authority for our thoughts on the subject must be found in the words of Jesus when He teaches us to pray for deliverance from ‘the evil one’ (&nbsp;Matthew 6:13), and warns us against false Christs and false prophets who proclaim a kingdom that is not His own (&nbsp;Matthew 24:24). </p> <p> Literature.-H. Gunkel, <i> Schöpfung und [[Chaos]] </i> , Göttingen, 1895; W. Bousset, <i> The Antichrist Legend </i> , Eng. translation, London, 1896; [[W. O. E]]  Oesterley, <i> The [[Evolution]] of the Messianic Idea </i> , do. 1908; C. Clemen, <i> Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources </i> , Eng. translation, Edinburgh, 1912; articles ‘Antichrist’ in <i> Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche </i> 3, <i> Encyclopaedia of [[Religion]] and Ethics </i> , and <i> Encyclopaedia Biblica </i> , and ‘Man of Sin’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> ; H. Cremer, <i> Bib.-Theol. Lex., s.v </i> .; J. Moffatt, ‘Revelation’ in <i> Expositor’s Greek [[Testament]] </i> ; <i> Expository Times </i> xvi. [1904-5] 472, xxiii. [1911-12] 97. </p> <p> [[J. C]]  Lambert. </p>

<p> There are seven sets of passages noteworthy. </p> <p> '''Summary.''' </p> <p> '''(I.)''' Christ's predictions of false Christs and false prophets (&nbsp;Matthew 21:3-31). </p> <p> '''(II.)''' John's prophecy of "Antichrist" (this name occurs only with him) (&nbsp;1 John 2:18-23; &nbsp;1 John 4:1-3; &nbsp;2 John 1:5; &nbsp;2 John 1:7). </p> <p> '''(III.)''' Paul's "adversary" (Greek '''''Antikeimenos''''' , in sound and sense answering to Antichrist) (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:1-5), "in the last days, perilous times," characterized by heady high mindedness, with the form but without the power of godliness, the love of pleasure supplanting the love of God, contrasted with the earlier "latter times," marked by seducing spirits, doctrines of demons, celibacy, and abstinence from meats (&nbsp;1 Timothy 4:1-5). </p> <p> '''(IV.)''' Daniel's "little horn" from among the ten horns of the fourth beast, or Roman empire (&nbsp;Daniel 7:7-27). </p> <p> '''(V.)''' Daniel's "little horn" from one of the four notable horns of the third beast, or Graeco [[Macedonia]] divided into four at Alexander's death, the willful king (&nbsp;Daniel 8:8-25; &nbsp;Daniel 11:36-39). </p> <p> '''(VI.)''' The beast from the sea (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1-8), ridden by the whore (&nbsp;Revelation 17:1-7). </p> <p> '''(VII.)''' The beast from the earth and the bottomless pit, or the false prophet (&nbsp;Revelation 11:7; &nbsp;Revelation 13:11-18; &nbsp;Revelation 17:8-18; &nbsp;Revelation 19:11-21). </p> <p> '''Detail.''' </p> <p> '''(I.)''' The false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24) point to the pretenders to Messiahship before the fall of Jerusalem, the foreshadowing of the future impostors about to deceive all but; the elect. They are the spirits of demons which prepare the false prophet's way, but they are not the false prophet himself (&nbsp;Revelation 16:13-14). </p> <p> '''(II.)''' John's Antichrist is stated to have been a subject of his oral teaching first (&nbsp;1 John 2:18; &nbsp;1 John 4:3), so Paul (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:5), and is therefore alluded to, not described. All who deny Jesus's Messiahship and Sonship (as Cerinthus and the [[Gnostics]] of John's days) forerun the Antichrist "to come" (the same Greek verb is used as of Christ's" coming".) </p> <p> '''(III.)''' Paul's '''''Antikeimenos''''' , "who opposeth all that is called God," is the "Antichrist" of John. He is not to come until "he who now letteth (hinders) and that which withholdeth" (hinders; the same Greek verb as before, only neuter instead of masculine) be taken out of the way; i.e., the curbing power of human law (neuter) and the curber (masculine), namely, the Roman emperor and whoever may be representative of the fourth world kingdom's power just before Antichrist. The unanimous consent of the early [[Christians]] that the Roman empire is "what withholdeth" was so unlikely to suggest itself to them, inasmuch as regarding it as idolatrous and often persecuting, that this explanation seems to have been preserved from Paul's oral teaching. Another less probable view is that the [[Holy]] Spirit is "He who now letteth," and the elect church the thing "that withholdeth," and that is to be taken out of the way on the eve of Antichrist's coming. </p> <p> '''(IV.)''' Daniel's "little horn" (&nbsp;Daniel 7:7-27) of the fourth kingdom is the papacy as a temporal power, rising on the ruins of the Roman empire, and plucking up three of its ten horns. </p> <p> '''(V.)''' Distinct from the" little horn" of Daniel 8, which is connected with the third, not the fourth, kingdom; ANTIOCHUS Epiphanes, of the [[Syrian]] fourth part of the divided Graeco-Macedonian or third kingdom, who persecuted the Jews, prohibited circumcision, and substituted the worship of [[Jupiter]] Olympius, with whom he identified himself as if God, instead of that of Jehovah, in the templeat Jerusalem. But this Old Testament Antichrist has a worse antitype in the New Testament, namely, the Antichrist of the last days. The language of &nbsp;Daniel 8:8-25 and &nbsp;Daniel 11:36-39, partially fulfilled by Antiochus, is exhaustively fulfilled only in the last Antichrist. </p> <p> '''(VI.)''' As the beast from the sea has ten horns, comprising both E. and W., and power is given to it for forty-two months (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1; &nbsp;Revelation 13:5), so the little horn (&nbsp;Daniel 7:3; &nbsp;Daniel 7:7) absorbs the power of the ten-horned fourth beast out of the sea (the Roman empire) and wears out the saints for three and a half times (3 1/2 years, i.e. 42 months, or 1260 years, a year for a day). Both have "a mouth speaking great things" (&nbsp;Daniel 7:8; &nbsp;Daniel 7:11-20; &nbsp;Daniel 7:25); both blaspheme against the Most High (&nbsp;Revelation 13:6-7); both make war with the saints, and prevail; both persecute the saints (&nbsp;Revelation 13:7-10; &nbsp;Revelation 17:6), the beast being under the guidance of the harlot "drunken with their blood." The little horn of Daniel 7 therefore is the first beast of Revelation 13. Neither the little horn nor the first beast is Antichrist, who is an individual; it is a polity. </p> <p> '''(VII.)''' The beast from the earth (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11), or as he soon reveals himself (&nbsp;Revelation 11:7; &nbsp;Revelation 17:8), from the bottomless pit, the false prophet (&nbsp;Revelation 16:13; &nbsp;Revelation 19:20; &nbsp;Revelation 20:10), appears only when the harlot is unseated from the first beast. The harlot, the once pure woman (Revelation 12) corrupted, the apostate church, is distinct from the beast which it rides. The church, though corrupted, retains the human form, i.e. God's image, in which man was originally formed. The beast is the world estranged from God and under Satan, and so, however powerful, intellectual, and refined, essentially bestial. The faithful city (&nbsp;Isaiah 1:21) having become Babylon, the whore (Rome on the seven hills, &nbsp;Revelation 17:9) is punished in righteous retribution by that world upon which she rode, and for which she abandoned her faithful witness for God (Revelation 17). </p> <p> Then after her judgment follows Antichrist's development. The "falling away" of &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3 answers to the first beast of Revelation 13, also to the departure from the faith, in enforced celibacy, asceticism, doctrines of demons, etc., of &nbsp;1 Timothy 4:1-3. In the second [[Council]] of Nice, A.D. 787, image worship was sanctioned. In 754 the temporal power of the popes began by Pepin's grant to [[Pope]] [[Stephen]] III. of the three territories (answering to the three horns plucked up before the little horn, &nbsp;Daniel 7:8): Rome, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the exarchate of Ravenna; 1260 years from this date would end in 2014. Others date from A.D. 533, Justinian's edict acknowledging Pope John II: head of the church. The wounding to death and then the healing of the beast's deadly wound answers to the revival of idolatry and the setting up of a virtually pagan kingdom again at Rome in the eighth century (&nbsp;Revelation 13:3). </p> <p> Again, in the case of the second beast or the false prophet, the wound given at the [[Reformation]] is healed, and he appears again as "the beast that was, and is not, yet is," a resurrection man, the embodiment of a resurrection empire, a mock Christ; as the true Christ saith, "I am He that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore" (&nbsp;Revelation 1:18; &nbsp;Revelation 17:8). As Christ is the second Person in the Trinity, so Antichrist is the second in the anti-trinity, composed of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet (who bears witness to the first beast, as the Holy Spirit witnesseth of the Son). </p> <p> Antichrist's characteristics (2 Thessalonians 2; &nbsp;1 John 2:18-22; &nbsp;1 John 4:3) shall be open opposition to God and religion, a claim to God's exclusive prerogatives, lawlessness, power of lying miracles and of beguiling souls under Satan's energizing, having a lamb's horns, i.e., outwardly resembling Christ or Messiah (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11); sitting in God's temple as God, apparently restored Israel's persecutor, whence the sacred [[Hebrew]] is the language of Daniel 8-12, wherein the little horn from the East is a leading subject, whereas the world's language, Chaldee, is that of Daniel 7 wherein the Romish little horn is described. At first hailed by [[Israel]] with hosannahs as her Messiah (&nbsp;John 5:43), and making a covenant with the Jews, then breaking it (Daniel 9; 11; 12; Zechariah 11; 12; 13; 14). </p> <p> Antichrist, as the second beast or false prophet, will be personally an avowed atheist (&nbsp;1 John 2:22), yet represent himself as the decaying church's vindicator, compel men to reverence her, breathe new life into her by using the secular arm in her behalf (&nbsp;Revelation 13:12-17), concentrating in himself the infidel lawless spirit working in the world from Paul's days (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:7). [[Heretofore]] infidelity and superstition have been on opposite sides, but when these shall combine against law, liberty, and Christianity, a period mercifully brief shall ensue, unparalleled in horrors by any that has gone before (&nbsp;Daniel 12:1-3). The two witnesses (Revelation 11) are variously explained as Moses and Elijah; Joshua the high priest and [[Zerubbabel]] the civil prince; the Word and the faithful church, to be slain or suppressed, perhaps about the same time that the harlot too is judged by the beast or Antichrist (Revelation 17; 18; 19.) The place of their temporary death is Jerusalem (&nbsp;Revelation 11:8), "where our Lord was crucified." </p> <p> "The number of the beast" is 666, i.e. 6, the world's number, in units, tens, and hundreds. Six is next to the sacred seven, which it mimics but falls short of; it is the number of the world given over to judgment. There is a pause between the sixth and seventh seals, the sixth and seventh trumpets: for the judgments of the world are completed in six; at the seventh the world kingdoms become Christ's. As twelve is the number of the church, so six, its half, symbolizes the world kingdoms broken. The radicals in Christ are [[Ch, R]]  and [[St (X P);]]  Antichrist's monogram personates it, but falls short of it, Ch X St (X) (666). It is curious that the only unquestionable 666 (&nbsp;1 Kings 10:14; &nbsp;2 Chronicles 9:13) in the Old Testament is the 666 talents of gold that came in yearly to Solomon, and were among the correcting influences that misled him. </p> <p> Moreover, the only two Greek nouns in the New Testament, whose value numerically is exactly 666, are precisely the two expressing the grand corrupters of the church and sources of idolatry, "tradition" ( '''''Paradosis''''' ), the corrupter of doctrine, "wealth" or the pursuit of it ( '''''Euporia''''' , only in &nbsp;Acts 19:25), the corrupter of practice (&nbsp;Colossians 3:5). The children of [[Adonikam]] are 666 in &nbsp;Ezra 2:13, but 667 in &nbsp;Nehemiah 7:18. Adonijah, bearing the name of the Lord Jehovah, rose up against the Lord's anointed, and so is a type of Antichrist. </p> <p> The Hebrew letters of [[Balaam]] (type of the false prophet whose spiritual knowledge shall be perverted to Satanic ends; &nbsp;Revelation 2:14 favors this, also the fact that Antichrist mainly shall oppress Israel, Daniel 8; 9; 11; 12) amount to 666. The Greek letters of '''''Lateinos''''' (Irenaeus), Rome's language in all official acts, amount to 666. The forced unity marked by Rome's ritual being everywhere in Latin is the premature counterfeit of the true unity, only to be realized when Christ, God's true [[Vicar]] on earth, shall appear, and all the earth shall "in a pure language serve the Lord with one consent" (&nbsp;Zephaniah 3:9). The last Antichrist will be closely connected with his predecessor (as the second beast is with the first in Revelation 13), and will arrogate all Rome's claims besides those peculiar to himself. </p>

<p> The name ἀντίχριστος signifies an opposer of Christ. It is used only by John in his first and second epistles, though those opposed to Christ are referred to by others under different names. It is important to distinguish between <i> an </i> antichrist and <i> the </i> antichrist. John says, "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there <i> many </i> antichrists;" whereas "he is <i> the </i> antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son." &nbsp;1 John 2:18,22 . He is the consummation of the many antichrists. To deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh is the spirit or power of the antichrist, but it eventuates in a departure from the special revelation of Christianity: 'they went out from us.' &nbsp;1 John 2:19; &nbsp;1 John 4:3; &nbsp;2 John 7 . Now this clears the ground at once of much that has obscured the subject. For instance, many have concluded that [[Popery]] is the antichrist, and have searched no farther into the question, whereas the above passage refutes this conclusion, for Popery does not deny the Father and the Son; and, in &nbsp;Revelation 17,18 , Popery is pointed out as quite distinct from 'the false prophet,' which is another name for the antichrist. It is fully granted that Popery is anti-christian, and a Christ-dishonouring and soul-deceiving system; but where God has made a distinction we must also do so. Besides Popery there were and there are <i> many </i> antichrists, which, whatever their pretensions, are the enemies of Christ, opposers of the truth, and deceivers of man. </p> <p> As to the Antichrist, it should be noticed that John makes another distinction between this one and the many. He speaks of the many as being already there, whereas the one was <i> to come; </i> and if we turn to &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 we read of something or some one that hinders that wicked or lawless one being revealed, although the mystery of iniquity was already at work. Now there has been no change of dispensation since this epistle was written, and John wrote much later, from which we learn that the revelation of the antichrist is <i> still future, </i> though doubtless the mystery of iniquity is getting ripe for his appearing; that which hindered and still hinders the manifestation of the antichrist is doubtless the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth. He will leave the earth at the rapture of the saints. </p> <p> This passage in Thessalonians gives us further particulars as to this [[Man Of]]  SIN.His coming is after the working of Satan, that is, he will be a confederate of Satan, and be able to work signs and lying wonders with all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish. Those that have refused the truth will then receive the lie of this wicked one. We get further particulars in &nbsp;Revelation 13:11-18 , where the anti-christian power or kingdom is described as a beast rising out of the earth, having two horns as a lamb, but speaking as a dragon. Here again we read that he will do great wonders, making fire come down from heaven, with other signs or miracles. </p> <p> In the description in Thessalonians he opposeth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped, and sits down in the temple of God, and sets forth himself as God. The Jews will receive him as their Messiah, as we read in &nbsp;John 5:43 . In the above passage in the Revelation this counterfeit of Christ's kingdom is openly idolatrous. He directs the dwellers on the earth to make an image of the beast (named in ver. 1, the future head of the resuscitated Roman empire) to which image he gives breath, that it should speak, and persecutes those who will not worship the image. He also causes all to receive a mark on their hand or their forehead that they may be known to be his followers; and that none else should be able to buy or sell. We thus see that in the Revelation the anti-christian power called also 'the false prophet' will work with the political head, and with Satan — a trinity of evil — not only in deceiving mankind, but also, in &nbsp;Revelation 16:13-16 , gathering together by their influence the kings of the earth to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. The three are cast into the lake of fire &nbsp;Revelation 19:20; &nbsp;Revelation 20:10 . </p> <p> In the O.T. we get still another character of this wicked one. In &nbsp;Daniel 11:36-39 he is called 'king.' Here he exalts himself and speaks marvellous things against the God of gods. He will not regard the God of his fathers (pointing out that he will be a descendant of Israel, probably from the tribe of Dan, cf. &nbsp; Genesis 49:17 ), nor "the desire of women" ( <i> i.e. </i> the Messiah, of whom every [[Jewess]] hoped to be the mother): he exalts himself above all. Here again he is an idolater, honouring a god that his fathers knew not. In &nbsp;Zechariah 11:15-17 he is referred to as the foolish and idol shepherd, who cares not for the flock, in opposition to the Lord Jesus the good Shepherd. </p> <p> This man of sin will 'do according to his own will' — just what the natural man ever seeks to do. In contrast to this the blessed Lord was obedient, and came not to do His own will. May His saints be ever on the watch against the many false prophets in the world, &nbsp;1 John 4:1 , and be loyal to their absent Lord, behold His beauty in the sanctuary, and reproduce Him more down here in their earthen vessels. </p>

<p> An adversary to Jesus Christ. There have been various opinions concerning the Antichrist mentioned in the Scripture, &nbsp;1 John 2:18 . Some have held that the Jews are to be reputed as Antichrist; others Caligula; others Mahomet; others Simon Magus; others infidelity; and others, that the devil himself is the Antichrist. Most authors agree, however, that it applies to the church of Rome. Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, and others, supposed Rome pagan to be designed; but Rome Christian seems more evident, for John "saw the beast rise up out of the sea, " &nbsp;Revelation 13:1 . Now, as heathen Rome had risen and been established long before his time, this could not refer to the Roman empire then subsisting, but to a form of government afterwards to arise. As, therefore, none did arise, after Rome was broken to pieces by the barbarians, but that of the papal power, it must be considered as applying to that. The descriptions also, of the beast as the great apostacy, the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity, and the son of perdition, will apply only to Christian Rome. </p> <p> See &nbsp;Daniel 7:1-28 : &nbsp; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 : and &nbsp; Revelation 13:1-18 : Besides the time allowed for the continuance of the beast will not apply to heathen Rome; for power was given to the beast for 1260 years, whereas heathen Rome did not last 400 years after this prophecy was delivered. </p> <p> Authors have differed as to the time when Antichrist arose. Some suppose that his reign did not commence till he became a temporal prince, in the year 756, when [[Pepin]] wrested the exarchate of [[Ravenna]] from the Lombards, and made it over to the pope and his successors. Others think that it was in 727, when Rome and the Roman dukedom came from the [[Greeks]] to the Roman pontiff. Mede dates this rise in the year 456; but others, and I think with the greatest reason, place it in the year 606. Now, it is generally agreed that the reign of Antichrist is 1260 years; consequently, if his rise is not to be reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, then his fall must be when this power is taken away. According to the first opinion, he must have possessed his temporal power till the year 2016; according to the second, he must have possessed it till the year 1987. If this rise began, according to Mede, in 456, then he must have fallen in 1716. Now that these dates were wrong, circumstances have proved; the first and second being too late, and the third too early. As these hypotheses, therefore, must fall to the ground, it remains for us to consider why the last mentioned is the more probable. It was about the year 606 that pope Boniface III. by flattering Phocas, the emperor of Constantinople, one of the worst of tyrants, procured for himself the title of Universal Bishop. </p> <p> The bishops of Rome and [[Constantinople]] had long been struggling for this honour; at last, it was decided in favour of the bishop of Rome; and from this time he was raised above all others, and his supremacy established by imperial authority: it was now, also, that the most profound ignorance, debauchery, and superstition, reigned. From this time the popes exerted all their power in promoting the idolatrous worship of images, saints, reliques, and angels. The church was truly deplorable; all the clergy were given up to the most flagrant and abominable acts of licentiousness. Places of worship resembled the temples of heathens more than the churches of Christians; in fine, nothing could exceed the avarice, pride, and vanity of all the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and even the cloistered monks! All this fully answered the description St. Paul gave of Antichrist, &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 : It is necessary also to observe, that this epoch agrees best with the time when, according to prophecy, he was to be revealed. The rise of Antichrist was to be preceded by the dissolution of the Roman empire, the establishment of a different form of government in Italy, and the division of the empire into ten kingdoms; all these events taking place, make it very probable that the year 606 was the time of his rise. </p> <p> Nor have the events of the last century made it less probable. The power of the pope was never so much shaken as within a few years: "his dominion is, in a great measure, taken from him;" and every thing seems to be going on gradually to terminate his authority; so that, by the time this 1260 years shall be concluded, we may suppose that Antichrist shall be finally destroyed. As to the cruelties of Antichrist, the persecutions that have been carried on, and the miseries to which mankind have been subject, by the power of the beast, the reader ma consult the articles [[Inquisition]] and PERSECUTION. In this we have to rejoice, that, however various, the opinions of the learned may be as to the time when Antichrist rose, it is evident to all that he is fast declining, and will certainly fall, &nbsp;Revelation 18:1; &nbsp;Revelation 18:5 . What means the [[Almighty]] may farther use, the exact time when, and the manner how, all shall be accomplished, we must leave to him who ordereth all things after the counsel of his own will </p> <p> See Bp. Newton on the Prophesies; Simpson's [[Key]] to ditto; Moseley's Ser. on Fall of Babylon; Ward's Three Discourses of [[Prophecy]] and books under that article. </p>

<p> The term "antichrist" occurs only in 1,2John, and there in both singular and plural forms. It is part of a complex of images and figures that represent the activity and power of evil—of those forces that are hostile to God. The Old Testament uses the figure of a dragon to symbolize evil's conflict with God existing from the time of creation to God's final triumph (&nbsp;Isaiah 27:1; cf. &nbsp;Genesis 1:21; see also the reference to [[Rahab]] the dragon/sea monster defeated at the time of creation, &nbsp;Psalm 89:9-10; cf. &nbsp;Job 9:13; &nbsp;26:12 ). The dragon figure is applied to earthly powers who are enemies of God, such as Nebuchadnezzer (&nbsp;Jeremiah 51:34 ) and [[Pharoah]] (&nbsp;Ezekiel 32:2 ). The figure of the beast also denotes forces (specifically political powers) hostile to God (&nbsp;Daniel 7 ). Both these figures reappear in the New Testament, particularly in Revelation. The dragon is used twelve times in Revelation and designates the devil and Satan and the enemy of God's Messiah. The beast is a central image in Revelation used to symbolize that which opposes and parodies God. </p> <p> The New Testament indicates the presence of cosmic opposition to God through reference primarily to forces, people, or a person who seek to deceive those who already know God's Messiah. The cosmic struggle with evil is now chiefly localized in the church. So the spirit of antichrist (&nbsp;1 John 4:3 ), the false Christs (&nbsp;Mark 13:22 ) and antichrists (&nbsp;1 John 2:18 ), the antichrist (&nbsp;1 John 2:18,22; &nbsp;4:3; &nbsp;2 John 1:7 ), the man of lawlessness (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3 ), and the "desolating sacrilege" (&nbsp;Mark 13:14 the; masculine participle suggesting a person such as the antichrist ) all concentrate their activity on the elect or the community of faith. These figure(s) lie and deny Christ (&nbsp; 1 John 2:22; &nbsp;2 John 7 cf. &nbsp; 1 John 4:3 ), lead astray (&nbsp;Mark 13:22 ), oppose and even declare himself as God in the temple (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:4 ,; cf. &nbsp;Mark 13:14 ). </p> <p> In both Testaments these figures function not only to describe the magnitude and threat of evil but to affirm God's control over creation. In the Old Testament and New Testament the image of the beast is used to describe both the power and intensity of evil and to declare God's ultimate victory. The figure of the antichrist and the man of lawlessness do not occur in the Old Testament, although their New Testament use is replete with Old Testament allusions. In the New Testament these figures function in line with the Old Testament conviction that God will ultimately defeat the forces of evil. </p> <p> The predominant venue for these figures in the Bible is in the context of discussion of the last days. The eschaton is recognizable because of the unleashing of evil and will be characterized by a particularly vivid and horrific confrontation between God and his enemy (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2; &nbsp;1 John 2:18 ). This expectation accords with that of Jewish apocalyptic literature (Sybilline Oracles, Book 3; 4Esdras 5:6) and early [[Catholic]] Christianity (Didache 16:1-4). The constant biblical conviction is that God will ultimately triumph over every opposition to him and his people, whether such enmity is manifested in earthly or supernatural powers. The last battle will be won by God and the beneficiaries will be God's people. </p> <p> L. Ann Jervis </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . [[M. D]]  Hooker, <i> BJRL </i> 65 (1982):78-99; [[H. K]]  Larondelle, <i> Andrews UNIVersity Seminary Studies </i> 21 (1983):61-69. </p>

<div> '''1: '''''Ἀντίχριστος''''' ''' (Strong'S #500 — Noun Masculine — antichristos — an-tee'-khris-tos ) </div> <p> can mean either "against Christ" or "instead of Christ," or perhaps, combining the two, "one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ" (Westcott). The word is found only in John's epistles, (a) of the many "antichrists" who are forerunners of the "Antichrists" himself, &nbsp;1 John 2:18,22; &nbsp;2 John 1:7; (b) of the evil power which already operates anticipatively of the "Antichrist," &nbsp;1 John 4:3 . </p> &nbsp;Revelation 13&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2&nbsp;Revelation 13&nbsp;Matthew 24:24&nbsp;Mark 13:22

<p> ( '''''Ἀντίχριστος''''' '', Against Christ;'' others, ''Instead Of Christ'' [see below]), a term which has received a great variety of interpretations. Although the word Antichrist is used only by the Apostle John (Epistle 1 and 2), yet it has been generally applied also </p> <p> '''(1)''' to the "Little Horn" of the "King of [[Fierce]] Countenance" (&nbsp;Daniel 7:1-28; &nbsp;Daniel 8:1-27); </p> <p> '''(2)''' to the "false Christ" predicted by our [[Savior]] (&nbsp;Matthew 14:1-36); </p> <p> '''(3)''' to the "Man of Sin" of St. Paul (2 Thessalonians); and </p> <p> '''(4)''' to the "Beasts" of the Apocalypse (Revelations 13, 18). </p> <p> '''I.''' ''Meaning Of The Word. '''''—''''' '' Some maintain (e.g. Greswell) that Antichrist can mean only "false Christ," taking '''''Ἀντί''''' in the sense of "instead." But this is undue refinement: '''''Ἀντί''''' bears the sense of "against" as well as "instead of," both in classical and N.T. usage. So '''''Ἀντικτήσεσθαι''''' means to ''Gain Instead'' of, while '''''Ἀντιλέγειν''''' means to ''Speak Against.'' The word doubtless includes both meanings '''''—''''' "pseudo-Christ" as well as "opposed to Christ," much as "anti-pope" implies both rivalry and antagonism. According to [[Bishop]] Hurd, it signifies "a person of power actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ." For, to adopt the illustration of the same writer, "as the word [[Christ]] is frequently used in the apostolic writings for the doctrine of Christ, in which sense we are to understand to '''''‘''''' put on Christ,' to '''''‘''''' grow in Christ,' or to '''''‘''''' learn Christ,' so ''Antichrist,'' in the abstract, may be taken for a doctrine subversive of the Christian; and when applied to a particular man, or body of men, it denotes one who sets himself against the spirit of that doctrine." It seems, however, that the [[Scriptures]] employ the term both with a general and limited signification. In the general sense, with which Bishop Hurd's idea mainly agrees, every person who is hostile to the authority of Christ, as Lord or head of the Church, and to the spirit of his religion, is called Antichrist; as when the Apostle John, referring to certain false teachers who corrupted the truth from its simplicity, says, "Even now are there many Antichrists" (&nbsp;1 John 2:18; &nbsp;1 John 4:3), many who corrupt the doctrine and blaspheme the name of Christ, i.e. Jewish sectaries (Lucke, ''Comment.'' in loc.). </p> <p> '''II.''' ''Types And Predictions Of Antichrist In O.T.'' 1. ''Balaam.'' As Moses was the type of Christ, so Balaam, the opponent of Moses, is to be taken as an O.T. type of Antichrist (&nbsp;Numbers 31:16; comp. &nbsp;Judges 1:9-11; &nbsp;2 Peter 2:14-16; &nbsp;Revelation 2:14). (See Balaam). </p> <p> '''2.''' ''Antiochus Epiphanes,'' the ''"King Of Fierce Countenance"'' (&nbsp;Daniel 8:23-25): "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come tothe full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." (Comp. also chapters 11, 12.) Most interpreters concur in applying this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of Antichrist. Antiochus is here set forth </p> <p> (ch. 8) as a theocratic anti-Messiah, opposed to the true Messiah, who, it will be remembered, is generally described in O.T. as a king. [[Jerome]] (quoted in Smith, Dictionary, s.v.) argues as follows: "All that follows (from ch. 11:21) to the end of the book applies personally to Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus, and son of Antiochus the Great; for, after Seleucus, he reigned eleven years in Syria, and possessed Judaea; and in his reign there occurred the persecution about the Law of God, and the wars of the Maccabees. But our people consider all these things to be spoken of Antichrist. who is to come in the last time . . . . It is the custom of Holy Scripture to anticipate in types the reality of things to come. For in the same way our Lord and Savior is spoken of in the 72d Psalm, which is entitled a Psalm of Solomon, and yet all that is there said cannot be applied to Solomon. But in part, and as in a shadow and image of the truth, these things are foretold of Solomon, to be more perfectly fulfilled in our Lord and Savior. As, then, in Solomon and other saints the Savior has types of His coming, so Antichrist is rightly believed to have for his type that wicked king Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and '''''‘''''' defiled the Temple" (Hieron. Op. 3, 1127, Par. 1704). (See Antiochus Epiphanes). </p> <p> '''3.''' ''The Little Horn'' (&nbsp;Daniel 7:1-28). Here the four beasts indicate four kings; their kingdoms are supposed to be the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and Syrian (some say Roman) empires. The last empire breaks up into ten, after which the king rises up and masters three (&nbsp;Daniel 7:24) of them. It is declared (&nbsp;Daniel 7:25) that he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time" '''''—''''' indicating a person, as well as a power or polity. It is likely that this prediction refers also to Antiochus as the type of Antichrist, at least primarily. (See Little Horn). </p> <p> '''III.''' ''Passages In N.T. '''''—''''' '' </p> <p> '''1.''' In &nbsp;Matthew 24:1-51, Christ himself foretells the appearance of false Messiahs; thus, &nbsp;Matthew 24:5 : "For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many;" also &nbsp;Matthew 24:23-24 : "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here ''Is'' Christ or there, believe it not; for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if ''It Uwere'' possible, they shall deceive the very elect." </p> <p> (Comp. &nbsp;Mark 13:21-22.) In these passages ''Anti-Christian'' teachers and their works are predicted. Christ teaches "that </p> <p> '''(1)''' in the latter days of Jerusalem there should be sore distress, and that in the midst of it there should arise impostors who would claim to be the promised Messiah, and would lead away many of their countrymen after them; and that </p> <p> '''(2)''' in the last days of the world there should be a great tribulation and persecution of the saints, and that there should arise at the same time false Christs and false prophets, with an unparalleled power of leading astray. In type, therefore, our Lord predicted the rise of the several impostors who excited the fanaticism of the Jews before their fall. In antitype He predicted the future rise of impostors in the last days, who should beguile all but the elect into the belief of their being God's prophets, or even his Christs. Our Lord is not speaking of any one individual (or polity), but rather of those forerunners of the Antichrist who are his servants and actuated by his spirit. They are '''''Ψευδόχριστοι''''' (false Christs), and can deceive almost the elect, but they are not specifically '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Ἀντίχριστος''''' (the Antichrist); they are '''''Ψευδοπροφῆται''''' (false prophets), and can show great signs and wonders, but they are not '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Ψευδοπροφήτης''''' ( ''The'' false prophet) (Revelations 16:14). </p> <p> '''2.''' ''St. Paul'S Man Of Sin.'' Paul specifically ''Personifies'' Antichrist, &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 : "Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of-sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God;" also &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:8-10 : "And then shall that [[Wicked]] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." Here he "who opposeth himself" ( '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Ἀντικείμενος''''' , the Adversary, &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:4) is plainly Antichrist. Paul tells the Thessalonians that the spirit of Antichrist, or Antichristianism, called by him "the mystery of iniquity," was already working; but Antichrist himself he characterizes as "the Man of Sin," "the Son of Perdition," "the [[Adversary]] to all that is called God," "the one who lifts himself above all objects of worship;" and assures them that he should not be revealed in person until some present obstacle to his appearance should have been taken away, and until the predicted '''''Ἀποστασία''''' should have occurred. Comp. &nbsp;1 Timothy 4:1-3; &nbsp;2 Timothy 3:1-5. (See [[Man Of Sin]]). </p> <p> '''3.''' ''The Antichrist Of John.'' The Apostle John also personifies Antichrist, alluding, as St. Paul does, to previous oral teaching on the subject, and applying it to a class of opponents of Christ: &nbsp;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;" and to a spirit of opposition; &nbsp;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." The Apostle here teaches "that the spirit of the Antichrist could exist even then, though the coming of the Antichrist himself was future, and that all who denied the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus were Antichrists, as being types of the final Antichrist who was to come. The teaching of John's Epistles, therefore, amounts to this, that [[In]] type, Cerinthus, Basilides, Simon Magus and those Gnostics who denied Christ's Sonship, and all subsequent heretics who should deny it, were Antichrists, as being wanting in that divine principle of love which with him is the essence of Christianity; and he points on to the final appearance of the Antichrist that was "to come" in the last times, according as they had been orally taught, who would be the antitype of these his forerunners and servants." Comp. also &nbsp;1 John 4:1-3, &nbsp;2 John 1:7. "From John and Paul together we learn </p> <p> '''(1)''' that the Antichrist should come; </p> <p> '''(2)''' that he should not come until a certain obstacle to his coming was removed; </p> <p> '''(3)''' nor till the time of, or rather till after the time of the '''''Ἀποστασία''''' ; </p> <p> '''(4)''' that his characteristics would be </p> <p> '''(a)''' open opposition to God and religion; </p> <p> '''(b)''' a claim to the incommunicable attributes of God; </p> <p> '''(c)''' iniquity, sin, and lawlessness; </p> <p> '''(d)''' a power of working lying miracles; </p> <p> '''(e)''' marvellous capacity of beguiling souls; </p> <p> '''(5)''' that he would be actuated by Satan; </p> <p> '''(6)''' that his spirit was already at work manifesting itself partially, incompletely, and typically, in the teachers of infidelity and immorality already abounding in the Church." </p> <p> The Obstacle ( '''''Τὸ''''' '''''Κατέχον''''' ) ''. '''''—''''' '' Before leaving the apostolical passages on Antichrist, it is expedient to inquire into the meaning of the "obstacle" alluded to in the last paragraph: that which ''"Withholdeth"'' ( '''''Τὸ''''' '''''Κατέχον''''' , &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:6); described also in &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:7 as a person: ''"He Who Now'' letteth" ( '''''Ὸ''''' '''''Κατέχων''''' ) ''.'' The early Christian writers generally consider "the obstacle" to be the Roman empire; so "Tertullian ( ''De Resur. Carn.'' c. 24, and ''Apol.'' c. 32); St. Chrysostom and [[Theophylact]] on &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:1-17; Hippolytus ( ''De Antichristo,'' c. 49); St. Jerome on &nbsp;Daniel 7:1-28; St. [[Augustine]] ( ''De Civ. Dei, 2'' 0, 19); St. [[Cyril]] of Jerusalem ( ''Catech.'' 15, 6; see Dr. H. More's Works, &nbsp;Luke 2:1-52, ch. 19, p. 690; Mede, bk. 3, ch. 13, p. 656; Alford, ''Gk. Test.'' 3 '','' 57; Wordsworth, ''On The Apocalypse,'' p. 520). [[Theodoret]] and [[Theodore]] of Mopsuestia hold it to be the determination of God. Theodoret's view is embraced by Pelt; the Patristic interpretation is accepted by Wordsworth. Ellicott and Alford so far modify the Patristic interpretation as to explain the obstacle to be the restraining power of human law ( '''''Τὸ''''' '''''Κατέχον''''' ) wielded by the empire of Rome ( '''''Ὸ''''' '''''Κατέχων''''' ) when Tertullian wrote, but now by the several governments of the civilized world. The explanation of Theodoret is untenable on account of Paul's further words, '''''‘''''' until he be taken out of the way,' which are applied by him to the obstacle. The modification of Ellicott and Alford is necessary if we suppose the '''''Ἀποστασία''''' to be an [[Infidel]] apostasy still future; for the Roman empire is gone, and ''This'' apostasy is not come, nor is the Wicked One revealed. There is much to be said for the Patristic interpretation in its plainest acceptation. How should the idea of the Roman empire being the obstacle to the revelation of Antichrist have originated? There was nothing to lead the early Christian writers to such a belief. They regarded the Roman empire as idolatrous and abominable, and would have been more disposed to consider it as the precursor than as the obstacle to the Wicked One. Whatever the obstacle was, Paul says that he told the Thessalonians what it was. Those to whom he had preached knew, and every time that his Epistle was publicly read (&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:27), questions would have been asked by those who did not know, and thus the recollection must have been kept up. It is very difficult to see whence the tradition could have arisen, except from Paul's own teaching. It may be asked, Why then did he not express it in writing as well as by word of mouth? St. Jerome's answer is sufficient: '''''‘''''' If he had openly and unreservedly said, "Antichrist will not come unless the Roman empire be first destroyed," the infant church would have been exposed in consequence to persecution (ad Algas. Qu. 11, vol. 4, p. 209, Par. 1706). Remigius gives the same reason: '''''‘''''' He spoke obscurely for fear a Roman should perhaps read the Epistle, and raise a persecution against him and the other Christians, for they held that they were to rule for ever in the world' (Bib. Patr. Max. 8, 1018; see Wordsworth, On the Apocalypse, p. 343). It would appear, then, that the obstacle was probably the Roman empire, and on its being taken out of the way there did occur the '''''‘''''' falling away.' [[Zion]] the beloved city became [[Sodom]] the bloody city '''''—''''' still Zion though Sodom, still Sodom though Zion. According to the view given above, this would be the description of the church in her present estate, and this will continue to be our estate, until the time, times, and half time, during which the evil element is allowed to remain within her, shall have come to their end." </p> <p> '''4.''' ''Passages In The Apocalypse. '''''—''''' '' </p> <p> '''(1)''' ''The Beast From The Sea.'' The Apocalypse symbolizes the final opposition to Christianity as a beast out of the pit (&nbsp;Revelation 11:7): "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them;" out of the sea (13): "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority" (comp. the whole chapter, and &nbsp;Revelation 17:1-18). The "beast" is here similar to the Little [[Horn]] of Daniel. "The Beast whose power is absorbed into the Little Horn has ten horns (&nbsp;Daniel 7:7), and rises from the sea (&nbsp;Daniel 7:3): the [[Apocalyptic]] Beast has ten horns (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1), and rises from the sea (ibid.). The Little Horn has a mouth speaking great things (&nbsp;Daniel 7:8; &nbsp;Daniel 7:11; &nbsp;Daniel 7:20): the Apocalyptic Beast has a mouth speaking great things (&nbsp;Revelation 13:5). The Little Horn makes war with the saints, and prevails (&nbsp;Daniel 7:21): the Apocalyptic Beast makes war with the saints, and overcomes them (&nbsp;Revelation 13:7). The Little Horn speaks great words against the Most High (&nbsp;Daniel 7:25): the Apocalyptic Beast opens his mouth in blasphemy against God (&nbsp;Revelation 13:6). The Little Horn wears out the saints of the Most High (&nbsp;Daniel 7:25): the woman who rides on, i.e. directs, the Apocalyptic Beast, is drunken with the blood of saints (&nbsp;Revelation 17:6). The persecution of the Little Horn is to last a time, and times and a dividing of times, i.e. three and a half times (&nbsp;Daniel 7:25): power is given to the Apocalyptic Beast for forty-two months, i.e. three and a half times (&nbsp;Revelation 13:5)." These and other parallelisms show that as the Little Horn was typical of an individual that should stand to the Church as the leading type of Antichrist, so John's Apocalyptic Beast was symbolical of a later individual, wiho should embody the elements of a similar Antichristian power with respect to the Christians. </p> <p> '''(2)''' ''The Second Beast And The False Prophet'' (Revelations 13:11-18; 19:11-21). In these passages we find described a second beast, coming up out of the earth, who is accompanied by (or identical with) "the False Prophet." The following views are from Smith, s.v.: "His characteristics are </p> <p> '''[1]''' '''''‘''''' doing great wonders, so that he maketh fire to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men' (Revelations 13:13). This power of miracle-working, we should note, is not attributed by John to the First Beast; but it is one of the chief signs of Paul's Adversary, </p> <p> '''''‘''''' whose coming is with all power, and signs, and lying wonders' (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:9). </p> <p> '''[2]''' '''''‘''''' He deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the Beast' </p> <p> (&nbsp;Revelation 13:14). '''''‘''''' He wrought miracles with which he deceived them that received the mark of the Beast and worshipped the image of the Beast' (&nbsp;Revelation 19:20). In like manner, no special power of beguiling is attributed to the First Beast; but the Adversary is possessed of '''''‘''''' all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved' (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:10). </p> <p> '''[3]''' He has horns like a lamb, i.e. he bears an outward resemblance to the Messiah (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11); and the Adversary sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:4). </p> <p> '''[4]''' His title is The False Prophet, '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Ψευδοπροφήτης''''' (Revelations 16:13; 19:20); and our Lord, whom Antichrist counterfeits, is emphatically the Prophet, '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Προφήτης''''' . (The '''''Ψευδοπροφῆται''''' of &nbsp;Matthew 24:24, are the forerunners of '''''Ὁ''''' '''''Ψευδοπροφήτης''''' '','' as John the [[Baptist]] of the True Prophet.) It would seem that the Antichrist appears most distinctly in the Book of the Revelation by this Second Beast or the False Prophet, especially in the more general or representative character. He is not, however, necessarily a person, but rather the symbol of some power that should arise, who will ally itself with a corrupt religion (for the two Apocalyptic beasts are designated as distinct), represent itself as her minister and vindicator (&nbsp;Revelation 13:12), compel men by violence to pay reverence to her (&nbsp;Revelation 13:14), breathe a new life into her decaying frame I by his use of the secular arm in her behalf (&nbsp;Revelation 13:15), forbidding civil rights to those who renounce her authority and reject her symbols (&nbsp;Revelation 13:17), and putting them to death by the sword (&nbsp;Revelation 13:15)." (See [[Beast]]). </p> <p> '''IV.''' ''Interpretations. '''''—''''' '' Who or what is Antichrist? The answers to this question are legion. The ''Edinburgh Encyclopoedia'' (s.v.) enumerates fourteen different theories, and the list might be greatly enlarged. We give </p> <p> '''(1)''' a brief summary of the Scripture testimony; </p> <p> '''(2)''' the views of the early Christians; </p> <p> '''(3)''' the views held in the Middle Ages; </p> <p> '''(4)''' from the Reformation to the present time. </p> <p> In this sketch, we make use, to a considerable extent, of information from various sources, from which paragraphs have already been cited. </p> <p> '''1.''' ''Scripture Teaching. '''''—''''' '' The sum of Scripture teaching with regard to the Antichrist, then, appears to be as follows: Already, in the times of the apostles, there was the mystery of iniquity, the spirit of Antichrist, at work. It embodied itself in various shapes '''''—''''' in the [[Gnostic]] heretics of John's days; in the Jewish impostors who preceded the fall of Jerusalem; in all heresiarchs and unbelievers, especially those whose heresies had a tendency to deny the incarnation of Christ; and in the great persecutors who from time to time afflicted the church. But this Antichristian spirit was originally, and is now again diffused; it has only at times concentrated itself in certain personal or distinct forms of persecution, which may thus be historically enumerated: 1. Antiochus Epiphanes, the consummation of the Hellenizing policy of the Greco-Syrian monarchy, and denoted by the Little Horn and fierce king of &nbsp;Daniel 2:1-49. The apostate Jewish faith, especially in its representatives who opposed Christianity in its early progress, and at length caused the downfall of the Jewish nation, as represented by the allusions in our Savior's last discourse and in John's epistles. 3. The Roman civil power (the first beast of Revelation) abetting the pagan mythology (the second beast, or false prophet) in its violent attempts to crush Christianity, at first insidious, but finally open, as culminating in Nero and Domitian. It is this phase which seems incipiently alluded to by Paul. All these-hiave again their refulfilment (so to speak) in the great apostasy ofthe papal system. (Compare especially the characteristics of the Second Beast, above.) There is also dimly foreshadowed some future contest, which shall arouse the same essential elements of hostility to divine truth. (See Babylon); (See Gog). </p> <p> '''2.''' ''Early Christian Views. '''''—''''' '' The early Christians looked for Antichrist in a person, not in a polity or system. "That he would be a man armed with Satanic powers is the opinion of Justin Martyr, A.D. 103 (Dial. 371, 20, 21, Thirlbii. 1722); of Irensus, A.D. 140 (Op. 5,25, 437, Grabii. 1702); of Tertullian, A.D. 150 (De Res. Carn. c. 24; Apol. c. 32); of Origen, A.D. 184 (Op. 1, 667, Delarue, 1733); of his contemporary, Hippolytus (De Antichristo, 57, Fabricii, Hamburgi. 1716); of Cyprian, A.D. 250 (Ep. 58; op. 120, Oxon. 1682) of Victorinus, A.D. 270 (Bib. Patr. Magna, 3, 136, Col. Agrip. 1618); of Lactantius, A.D. 300 (Dyv. Inst. 7, 17); of Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 315 (Catech. 15, 4); of Jerome, A.D. 330 (Op. 4, pars 1, 209, Parisiis, 1693); of Chrysostom, A.D. 347 (Comm. in 2 Thessalonians); of Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 350 (Comm. in Matthew); of Augustine, A.D. 354 (De Civit. Dei, 20, 19); of Ambrose, A.D. 380 (Comm. in Luc.). The authors of the Sibylline Oracles, A.D. 150, and of the [[Apostolical]] Constitutions, [[Celsus]] (see Orig. c. Cels. lib. 6), Ephraem Syrus, A.D. 370, Theodoret, A.D. 430, and a few other writers, seem to have regarded the Antichrist as the devil himself, rather than as his minister or an emanation from him. But they may, perhaps, have meant no more than to express the identity of his character and his power with that of Satan. Each of the writers to whom we have referred gives his own judgment with respect to some particulars which may be expected in the Antichrist, while they all agree in representing him as a person about to come shortly before the glorious and final appearance of Christ, and to be destroyed by His presence. Justin [[Martyr]] speaks of him as the man of the apostasy, and dwells chiefly on the persecutions which he would cause. </p> <p> [[Irenaeus]] describes him as summing up the apostasy in himself; as having his seat at Jerusalem; as identical with the Apocalyptic Beast (c. 28); as foreshadowed by the unjust judge; as being the man who '''''‘''''' should come in his own name,' and as belonging to the tribe of Dan (c. 30). Tertullian identifies him with the Beast, and supposes him to be about to arise on the fall of the Roman Empire (De Res. Cam. c. 25). [[Origen]] describes him in Eastern phrase as the child of the devil and the counterpart of Christ. Hippolytus understands the Roman Empire to be represented by the Apocalyptic Beast, and the Antichrist by the False Prophet, who would restore the wounded Beast by his craft and by the wisdom of his laws. [[Cyprian]] sees him typified in Antiochus Epiphanes (Exhort. ad Mart. c. 11). Victorinus, with several others, misunstanding Paul's expression that the mystery of iniquity was in his day working, supposes that the Antichrist will be a revivified hero; Lactantius, that he will be a king of Syria, born of an evil spirit; Cyril, that he will be a magician, who by his arts will get the mastery of the Roman Empire. Jerome describes him as the son of the devil, sitting in the Church as though he were the Son of God; Chrysostom as '''''Ἀντίθεός''''' '''''Τις''''' '','' sitting in the Temple of God, that is, in all the churches, not merely in the Temple at Jerusalem; Augustine as the adversary holding power for three and a half years-the Beast, perhaps, representing Satan's empire. The primitive belief may be summed up in the words of Jerome ( ''Comm. On Daniel'' ) '':'' '''''‘''''' Let us say that which all ecclesiastical writers have handed down, viz., that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there will be ten kings, who will divide the Roman world among them; and there will arise an eleventh little king, who will subdue three of the ten kings, that is, the king of Egypt, of Africa, and of Ethiopia, as we shall hereafter show; and on these having been slain, the seven other kings will also submit. "And behold," he says, "in the ram were the eyes of a man" '''''—''''' this is that we may not suppose him to be a devil or a daemon, as some have thought, but a man in whom Satan will dwell utterly and bodily '''''—''''' "and a mouth speaking great things;" for he is "the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sitteth in the temple of God, making himself as God"' (Op. 4, 511, Col. Agrip: 1616). In his Comment. on &nbsp;Daniel 11:1-45, and in his reply to Algasia's eleventh question, he works out the same view in greater detail, the same line of interpretation continued. Andreas of Casarea, A.D. 550, explains him to be a king actuated by Satan, who will reunite the old Roman Empire and reign at Jerusalem (In Apoc. c. 13); Aretas, A.D. 650, as a king of the Romans, who will reign over the [[Saracens]] in [[Bagdad]] (In Apoc. c. 13)." </p> <p> '''3.''' ''Middle-Age Views. '''''—''''' '' In the Middle Age it was the prevailing opinion that Antichrist would either be brought forth by a virgin, or be the offspring of a bishop and a nun. About the year 950, ''Adso,'' a monk in a monastery of Western Franconia, wrote a treatise on Antichrist, in which he assigned a later time to his coming, and also to the end of the world (see Schrockh, Kirchengesch. 21, p. 243). He did not distinctly state whom he meant to be understood by Antichrist (Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrines, '''''§''''' 203). "A Frank king," he says, "will reunite the Roman Empire, and aldicate on Mount Olivet, and, on the dissolution of his kingdom, the Antichrist will be revealed." The same writer supposes that he will be born in Babylon, that he will be educated at [[Bethsaida]] and Chorazin, and that he will proclaim himself the Son of God at Jeruralem (Tract. in Antichr. apud August. Opera, 9, 454, Paris, 1637). In the singular predictions of Hildegarde ( '''''†''''' 1197), Antichrist is foretold as the spirit of doubt. She states that the exact season of Antichrist is not revealed, but describes his manifestation as an impious imitation or "parody of the incarnation of the Divine Word" (Christian Remembrancer, 44, 50). (See Hildegarde). But "the received opinion of the twelfth century is brought before us in a striking manner in the interview between [[Richard]] I and the abbot Joachim of Floris ( '''''†''''' 1202) at Messina, as the king was on his way to the Holy Land. </p> <p> '''''‘''''' I thought,' said the king, '''''‘''''' that Antichrist would be born in [[Antioch]] or in Babylon, and of the tribe of Dan, and would reign in the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, and would walk in that land in which Christ walked, and would reign in it for three years and a half, and would dispute against [[Elijah]] and Enoch, and would kill them, and would afterward die; and that after his death God would give sixty days of repentance, in which those might repent which should have erred from the way of truth, and have been seduced by the preaching of Antichrist and his false prophets.' This seems to have been the view defended by the archbishops of [[Rouen]] and Auxerre, and by the bishop of Bayonne, who were present at the interview, but it was not Joachim's opinion. He maintained the seven heads of the Beast to be Herod, Nero, Constantius, Mohammed, Melsemut, who were past; Saladin, who was then living; and Antichrist, who was shortly to come, being already born in the city of Rome, and about to be elevated to the apostolic see (Roger de Hoveden, in Richard 1, anno 1190). In his own work on the Apocalypse, Joachim speaks of the second Apocalyptic Beast as being governed by '''''‘''''' some great. prelate who will be like Simon Magus, and, as it were, universal pontiff throughout the world, and be that very Antichrist of whom St. Paul speaks.' These are very noticeable words. Gregory I had long since (A.D. 590) declared that any man who held even the shadow of the power which the popes of Rome soon after his time arrogated to themselves would be the precursor of Antichrist. Arnulphus, bishop of [[Orleans]] (or perhaps Gerbert), in an invective against John XV at the Council of Rheims, A.D. 991, had declared, that if the Roman pontiff was destitute of charity and puffed up with knowledge, he was Antichrist; if destitute both of charity and of knowledge, that he was a lifeless stone (Mansi, 9, 132, Ven. 1774); but Joachim is the first to suggest, not that such and such a pontiff was Antichrist, but that the Antichrist would be a Universalis Pontifex, and that he would occupy the apostolic see. Still, however, we have no hint of an order of men being the Antichrist; it is a living individual man that Joachim contemplates." Amalrich of Bena ( '''''†''''' 12th century) seems to have been the first to teach explicitly that the pope (i.e. the papal system) is Antichrist: Quia [[Papa]] esset Antichristus et [[Roma]] Babylon et ipse sedet in monte Oliveti. i.e. in pinguedine potestatis (according to [[Caesarius]] of Heisterbach; comp. Engelhardt, Kirchenhistorische Abhandlungen, p. 256, quoted by Hagenbach). The German emperors in their contests with the popes, often applied the title Antichrist to the latter; we find instances of this as early as the times of the Hohenstaufen. Emperor Louis, surnamed the Bavarian, also called Pope John XXII the mystical Antichrist (Schrockh, 31, p. 108). John Aventinus, in his Annalium Boiorunm, libri 8, p. 651, Lips. 1710), himself the Romish writer, speaks of it as a received opinion of the Middle Age that the reign of Antichrist was that of Hildebrand ( '''''†''''' 1085), and cites Eberhard, archbishop of [[Salzburg]] (12th century), as asserting that Hildebrand had, "in the name of religion, laid the foundation of the kingdom of Antichrist 170 years before his time." He can even name the ten horns. They are the "Turks, Greeks, Egyptians, Africans, Spaniards, English, French, Germans, Sicilians, and Italians, who now occupy the provinces of Rome; and a little horn has grown up with eyes and mouth, speaking great things, which is reducing three of these kingdoms i.e. Sicily, Italy, and [[Germany]] '''''—''''' to subserviency; is persecuting the people of Christ and the saints of God with intolerable opposition; is confounding things human and divine, and attempting things unutterable, execrable." Pope [[Innocent]] [[Iii (AD]]  1213) designated [[Mohammed]] as Antichrist; and as the number of the beast, 666, was held to indicate the period of his dominion, it was supposed that the Mohammedan power was soon to fall. </p> <p> The [[Waldenses]] have a treatise (given in Leger, Hist. des Eglises Vaudoises) concerning Antichrist of the 12th century (Gieseler, Maitland, and others, dispute the date, but the best authorities now agree to it). It treats of Antichrist as the whole anti-Christian principle concealing itself under the guise of Christianity, and calls it a "system of falsehood adorning itself with a show of beauty and piety, yet (as by the names and offices of the Scriptures, and the sacraments, and various other things may appear) very unsuitable to the Church of Christ. The system of iniquity thus completed, with its ministers, great and small, supported by those who are induced to follow it with an evil heart, and blindfold '''''—''''' this is the congregation which, taken together, comprises what is called Antichrist or Babylon, the fourth beast, the whore, the man of sin, the son of perdition." It originated, indeed, "in the times of the apostles, but, by gaining power and worldly influence, it had reached its climax in the corruption of the Papal Church. "Christ never had an enemy like this; so able to pervert the way of truth into falsehood, insomuch that the true church, with her children, is trodden under foot. The worship that belongs alone to God he transfers to Antichrist himself '''''—''''' to the creature, male and female, deceased '''''—''''' to images, carcasses, and relics. The sacrament of the [[Eucharist]] is converted into an object of adoration, and the worshipping of God alone is prohibited. He robs the Savior of his merits, and the sufficiency of his grace in justification, regeneration, remission of sins, sanctification, establishment in the faith, and spiritual nourishment; ascribing all these things to his own authority, to a form of words, to his own works, to the intercession of saints, and to the fire of purgatory. He seduces the people from Christ, drawing off their minds from seeking those blessings in him, by a lively faith in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, and teaching his followers to expect them by the will, and pleasure, and works of Antichrist. </p> <p> "He teaches to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the work of regeneration; thus confounding the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration with the external rite of baptism, and on this foundation bestows orders, and, indeed, grounds all his Christianity. He places all religion and holiness in going to mass, and has mingled together all descriptions of ceremonies, Jewish, heathen, and Christian '''''—''''' and by means thereof, the people are deprived of spiritual food, seduced from the true religion and the commandments of God, and established in vain and presumptuous hopes. All his works are done to be seen of men, that he may glut himself with insatiable avarice, and hence every thing is set to sale. He allows of open sins without ecclesiastical censure, and even the impenitent are not excommunicated" (Neander, Church History, 4, 605 sq.). </p> <p> The [[Hussites]] followed the Waldenses in this theory of Antichrist, applying it to the papal system., So did Wickliffe and his followers: Wickliffe, Trialogus (cited by Schrockh, 34, 509); Janow, Liber de Almtichristo (Hist. et Monum. J. Huss, vol. 1). Lord [[Cobham]] (Sir John Oldcastle), executed as a Wickliffite, 1417, declared to King Henry V that, "as sure as God's word is true, the pope is the great Antichrist foretold in Holy Writ" (New Genesis Dict. s.v. Oldcastle). </p> <p> '''4.''' ''From The Reformation Downward. '''''—''''' '' One of the oldest German works in print, the first mentioned by Panzer in the ''Annalen Der Alteren Deutschen Literatur,'' is ''Das Buch Yom Entkrist'' (The Book of Antichrist), or, also, "Bichlin von des Endte Christs Leben und Regierung durch verhengniss Gottes, wie er die Welt tuth verkeren mit seiner falschen Lere und Rat des Teufels," etc. " '''''‘''''' Little Book concerning Antichrist's Life and Rule through God's Providence, how he doth pervert the World with his false [[Doctrine]] and [[Counsel]] of the Devil," etc. (reprinted at Erfurt, 1516). As early as 1520 Luther began to doubt whether the pope were not Antichrist. In a letter to Spalatin, Feb. 23, 1520, he says, "Ego sic angor ut prope non dubitem papam esse proprie Antichristun." In the same year, when he heard of Eck's success in obtaining the bull against him from the pope, Luther exclaimed, "At length the mystery of Antichrist must be unveiled" (Ranke, Hist. of Reformation, Uk. 2, ch. 3). In the Reformation era the opinion that the papal system is Antichrist was generally adopted; and it is the prevalent opinion among Protestants to this day, although, as will appear below, some writers make Rome only one form of Antichrist. The various classes of opinion, and the writers who maintain them, are given by Smith, s.v., as follows: Bullinger (1504), Chytraeus (1571), Aretius (1573), Foxe (1586), Napier (1593), Mede (1632), Jurieu (1685), Bp. Newton (1750), Cunninghame (1813), [[Faber]] (1814), Woodhouse (1828), Habershon (1843), identify the False Prophet, or Second Apocalyptic Beast, with Antichrist and with the papacy; Marlorat (1574), King James I (1603), Daubuz (1720), [[Galloway]] (1802), the First Apocalyptic Beast; Briihtman (1600), Pareus (1615), Vitringa (1705), Gill (1776), Bachmair (1778), Fraser (1795), Croly (1828), Fysh (1837), Elliott (1844), both the Beasts. That the pope and his system are Antichrist was taught by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon, Bucer, Beza. Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, and by almost all Protestant writers on the Continent. Nor was there any hesitation on the part of English theologians to seize the same weapon of. offense. Bishop Bale (1491), like Luther, Bucer, and Melancthon, pronounces the pope in Europe and Mohammed in Africa to be Antichrist. The pope is Antichrist, say Cranmer (Works, 2, 46, Camb. 1844), Latimer (Works, 1, 149, Camb. 1844), Ridley (Works,p. 53. Camb. 1841), [[Hooper]] (Works, 2, 44, Camb., 1852), Hutchinson (Works, p. 304, Camb., 1842), Tyndale (Works, 1, 147, Camb. 1848), Sandys (Works, p. 11, Camb. 1841), Philpot (Works, p. 152, Camb. 1842), Jewell (Works, 1, 109, Camb. 1845), Rogers (Workes, p. 182, Camb. 1854), Fulke (Works, 2, 269, Camb. 1848), [[Bradford]] (Works, p. 435, Camb. 1848). Nor is the opinion confined to these 16th century divines, who may be supposed to have been specially incensed against popery. King James held it (Apol. pro Juram. Fidel. Lond. 1609) as strongly as [[Queen]] [[Elizabeth]] (see, Jewell, Letter to Bulling. May 22, 1559, [[Zurich]] Letters, First Series, p. 33, Camb. 1842); and the theologians of the 17th century did not repudiate it, though they less and less dwelt upon it as their struggle came to be with Puritanism in place of popery. Bishop Andrewes maintains it as a probable conclusion from the Epistle to the Thessalonians (Resp. ad Bellarm. p. 304, Oxon. 1851); but he carefully explains that King James, whom he was defending, had expressed his private opinion, not the belief of the church, on the subject (ibid. p. 23). Bramhall introduces limitations and distinctions (Works, 3, 520, Oxf. 1845); significantly suggests that there are marks of Antichrist which apply to the General [[Assembly]] of the [[Kirk]] of [[Scotland]] as much as to the pope or to the Turk (ibid. 3, 287), and declines to make the Church of [[England]] responsible for what individual preachers or writers had said on the subject in moments of exasperation (ib. 2, 582). From this time onward, in the Church of England, the less evangelical divines are inclined to abandon the theory of the Reformers, while, of course, the Romanizers oppose it. Yet it appears, from the list above, that some of the best interpreters in that church, as well as in other branches of Protestantism, maintain the old interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel, Paul, and John. </p> <p> Some writers have gone back to the old idea of an individual Antichrist yet to come, e. p. "Lacunza or Benezra (1810), Burgh, Samuel Maitland, Newman (Tracts for the Times, No. 83), [[Charles]] Maitland (Prophetic Interpretation). Others prefer looking upon him as long past, and fix upon one or another persecutor or heresiarch as the man in whom the predictions as to Antichrist found their fulfillment. There seems to be no trace of this idea for more than 1600 years in the church.: But it has been taken up by two opposite classes of expounders '''''—''''' by Romanists who were anxious to avert the application of the Apocalyptic prophecies from the papacy, and by others, who were disposed, not indeed to deny the prophetic import of the Apocalypse, but to confine the seer's ken within the closest and narrowest limits that were possible. Alcasar, a Spanish Jesuit, taking a hint from Victorinus, seems to have been the first (A.D. 1604) to have suggested that the Apocalyptic prophecies did not extend further than to the overthrow of paganism by Constantine. This view, with variations by Grotius, is taken up and expounded by Bossuet, Calmet, De Sacy, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Moses Stuart, Davidson. The general view of the school is that the Apocalypse describes the triumph of Christianity over Judaism in the first, and over heathenism in the third century. Mariana sees Antichrist in Nero; Bossuet in Dipoletian and in Julian; [[Grotius]] in Caligula; Wetstein in Titus; Hammond in Simon Magus (Works, 3, 620, Lond. 1631); [[Whitby]] in the Jews (Comm. 2, 431, Lond. 1760); Le [[Clerc]] in Simon, son of Giora, a leader of the rebel Jews; Schottgen in the Pharisees; Nossett and Krause in the Jewish zealots; Harduin in the High-priest Ananias; [[F. D]]  [[Maurice]] in [[Vitellius]] (On the Apocalypse, Camb. 1860)." </p> <p> '''5.''' The same spirit that refuses to regard Satan as an individual, naturally looks upon the Antichrist as an evil principle not embodied either in a person or in a polity. "Thus Koppe, Storr, Nitzsch, Pelt. (See Alford, ''Gk. Test.'' 3, 69.) Some of the Romish theologians find Antichrist in rationalism and radicalism, others in [[Protestantism]] as a whole. Some Protestants fix it in [[Romanism]] as a whole, others in Jesuitism; others, again, in the latest forms of infidelity, while some of the ultra [[Lutherans]] find it in modern radicalism, political and religious. Any view of this kind, when carried so far as to exclude all personal identification, is certainly too vague to be satisfactory. But, at the same time, the just conclusion seems to be that Antichrist is not to be confined to any single person or power, but is essentially a great principle or system of falsehood, having various manifestations, forms of working, and degrees, as especially exemplified in Antiochus Epiphanes, Jewish bigotry, and pagan intolerance; while it is undeniable that later Romanism exhibits some of the most prominent characteristics of Antichrist in a manner so striking and peculiar as to assure us that the system is not only one among the many species of Antichrist, but that it stands in the fore-front, and is pointed at by the finger of prophecy as no other form of Antichrist is. </p> <p> '''V.''' ''Time Of Antichrist. '''''—''''' '' A vast deal of labor has been spent upon computations based upon the "time, times, and dividing of time" in Daniel (7:25), and upon the "number of the Beast" (666) given in &nbsp;Revelation 13:18. We can only refer to the commentators and writers on prophecy for these, as it would take too much space to enumerate them. As to Daniel's "time, times, and dividing of time," it is commonly interpreted to mean 1260 years. "The papal power was completely established in the year 755, when it obtained the exarchate of Ravenna. Some, however, date the rise of Antichrist in the year of Christ 606, and Mede places it in 456. If the rise of Antichrist be not reckoned till he was possessed of secular authority, his fall will happen when this power shall be taken away. If his rise began, according to Mede, in 456, he must have fallen in 1716; if in 606, it must be in 1866; if in 755, in 2015. If, however, we use prophetical years, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, and date the rise of Antichrist in the year 755, his fall will happen in the year of Christ 2000" (Watson, s.v.). As to the "number of the beast," the interpretation suggested by Irenaeus is one of the most plausible. The number is "the number of a man" (&nbsp;Revelation 13:18); and Irenaeus names '''''Λατεινος''''' as fulfilling the conditions (see Alford, ''Comm.,'' who considers this the nearest approach to a complete solution). But human ingenuity has found the conditions fulfilled also in the name of Mohammed, Luther, Napoleon, and many others. After all the learning and labor spent upon the question, we must confess that it is yet left unsolved. </p> <p> '''VI.''' ''Jewish And Mohammedan Traditions Of Antichrist. '''''—''''' '' Of these we take the following account from Smith, s.v. </p> <p> '''1.''' "The name given by the Jews to Antichrist is ( '''''אִרְמַילוּס''''' ) ''Armillus.'' There are several rabbinical books in which a circumstantial account is given of him, such as the '''''‘''''' Book of Zerubbabel,' and others printed at Constantinople. [[Buxtorf]] gives an abridgment of their contents in his Lexicon, under the head '''''‘''''' Armillus,' and in the fiftieth chapter of his ''Synagoga Judaica'' (p. 717). The name is derived from &nbsp;Isaiah 11:4, where the [[Targum]] gives '''''‘''''' By the word of his mouth the wicked Armillus shall die,' for '''''‘''''' with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.' There will, say the Jews, be twelve signs of the coming of the Messiah: </p> <p> '''(1.)''' The appearance of three apostate kings who have fallen away from the faith, but in the sight of men appear to be worshippers of the true God. </p> <p> '''(2.)''' A terrible heat of the sun. </p> <p> '''(3.)''' A dew of blood (&nbsp;Joel 2:30). </p> <p> '''(4.)''' A healing dew for the pious. </p> <p> '''(5.)''' A darkness will be cast upon the sun (&nbsp;Joel 2:31) for thirty days (&nbsp;Isaiah 24:22). </p> <p> '''(6.)''' God will give universal power to the Romans for nine months, during which time the Roman chieftain will afflict the Israelites; at the end of the nine months God will raise up the Messiah Ben-Joseph '''''—''''' that is, the Messiah of the tribe of Joseph, named Nehemiah '''''—''''' who will defeat the Roman chieftain, and slay him. '''(7.)''' Then there will arise Armillus, whom the [[Gentiles]] or Christians call Antichrist. He will be born of a marble statue in one of the churches in Rome. He will go to the Romans and will profess himself to be their Messiah and their God. At once the Romans will believe in him and accept him for their king. Having made the whole world subject to him, he will say to the [[Idumaeans]] (i.e. Christians), '''''‘''''' Bring me the law which I have given you.' They will bring it with their book of prayers; and he will accept it as his own, and will exhort them to persevere in their belief of him. Then he will send to Nehemiah, and command the Jewish Law to be brought him, and proof to be given from it that he is God. Nehemiah will go before him, guarded by 30,000 warriors of the tribe of Ephraim, and will read, '''''‘''''' I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt have none other gods but me.' Armillus will say that there are no such words in the Law, and will command the Jews to confess him to be God as the other nations had confessed him. But Nehemiah will give orders to his followers to seize and bind him. Then Armillus, in rage and fury, will gather all his people in a deep valley to fight with Israel, and in that battle the Messiah Ben-Joseph will fall, and the angels will bear away his body and carry him to the resting-place of the Patriarchs. Then the Jews will be cast out by all nations, and suffer afflictions such as have not been from the beginning of the world, and the residue of them will fly into the desert, and will remain there forty and five days, during which time all the [[Israelites]] who are not worthy to see the redemption shall die. </p> <p> '''(8.)''' Then the great angel [[Michael]] will rise and blow three mighty blasts of a trumpet. At the first blast there shall appear the true Messiah Ben-David and the prophet Elijah, and they will manifest themselves to the Jews in the desert, and all the Jews throughout the world shall hear the sound of the trump, and those that have been carried captive into [[Assyria]] shall be gathered together; and with great gladness they shall come to Jerusalem. Then Armillus will raise a great army of Christians, and lead them to Jerusalem to conquer the new king. But God shall say to Messiah, '''''‘''''' [[Sit]] thou on my right hand,' and to the Israelites, '''''‘''''' [[Stand]] still and see what God will work for you to-day.' Then God will pour down sulphur and fire from heaven (&nbsp;Ezekiel 38:22), and the impious Armillus shall die, and the impious Idumaeans (i.e. Christians), who have destroyed the house of our God and have led us away into captivity, shall perish in misery; and the Jews shall avenge themselves upon them, as it is written: '''''‘''''' The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of [[Joseph]] a flame, and the house of [[Esau]] (i.e. the Christians) for stubble, and they shall kindle in them and devour them: there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau, for the Lord hath spoken it' (&nbsp;Obadiah 1:18). </p> <p> '''(9.)''' On the second blast of the trumpet the tombs shall be opened, and Messiah Ben-David shall raise Messiah Ben-Joseph from the dead. </p> <p> '''(10.)''' The ten tribes shall be led to Paradise, and shall celebrate the wedding-feast of the Messiah. And the Messiah shall choose a bride among the fairest of the daughters of Israel, anid children and children's children shall be born to him, and then he shall die like other men, and his sons shall reign over Israel after him, as it is written: '''''‘''''' He shall prolong his days' (&nbsp;Isaiah 53:10), which Rambam explains to mean, '''''‘''''' He shall live long, but he too shall die in great glory, and his son shall reign in his stead, and his sons' sons in succession' (Buxtorfii ''Synagoga Judaica,'' p. 717, Basil, 1661). </p> <p> '''2.''' Mussulmans, as well as Jews and Christians, expect an Antichrist. They call him ''Al Dajjal,'' from a name which signifies an impostor, or a liar; and they hold that their prophet Mohammed taught one of his disciples, whose name was Tamini Al-Dari, every thing relating to Antichrist. On his authority, they tell us that Antichrist must come at the end of the world; that he will make his entry into Jerusalem, like Jesus Christ, riding on an ass; but that Christ, who is not dead, will come at his second advent to encounter him; and that, after having conquered him, he will then die indeed. That the beast described by John in the Revelation will appear with Antichrist, and make war against the saints; that [[Imam]] Mahdi, who remains concealed among the Mussulmans, will then show himself, join Jesus Christ, and with him engage Dajjal; after which they will unite the Christians, and the Mussulmans, and of the two religions will make but one (D'Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. s.v. Daggial, etc.). </p> <p> "These Mohammedan traditions are an adaptation of Christian prophecy and Jewish legend, without any originality or any beauty of their own. They too have their signs which are to precede the final consummation. They are divided into the greater and lesser signs. Of the greater signs the first is the rising of the sun from the west (comp. &nbsp;Matthew 24:29). The next is the appearance of a beast from the earth, sixty cubits high, bearing the staff of Moses and the seal of Solomon, with which he will inscribe the word </p> <p> '''''‘''''' Believer' on the face of the faithful, and '''''‘''''' Unbeliever' on all who have not accepted Islamism (comp. &nbsp;Revelation 13:1-18). The third sign is the capture of Constantinople; while the spoil of which is being divided, news will come of the appearance of Antichrist, and every man will return to his own home. Antichrist will be blind of one eye and deaf of one ear, and will have the name of [[Unbeliever]] written on his forehead (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1-18). It is he that the Jews call Messiah Ben-David, and say that he will come in the last times and reign over sea and land, and restore to them the kingdom. He will continue forty days, one of these days being equal to a year, another to a month, another to a week, the rest being days of ordinary length. He will devastate all other places, but willnot be allowed to enter [[Mecca]] and Medina, which will be guarded by angels. Lastly, he will be killed by Jesus at the gate of Lud. For when news is received of the appearance of Antichrist, Jesus will come down to earth, alighting on the white tower at the east of Damascus, and will slay him; </p>