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> 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>

<p> '''Antichrist.''' This term is employed by the apostle John alone, who defines it in a manner which leaves no doubt as to its meaning. Its application is less certain. In the first passage—&nbsp;1 John 2:18—in which it occurs, the apostle makes direct reference to the false Christs whose coming, it had been foretold, should mark the last days. In verse 22 we and, "he is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son;" and still more positively, "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of antichrist." Comp. &nbsp;2 John 1:7. From these definitions it has been supposed that the object of the apostle in his first epistle was to combat the errors of Cerinthus, the [[Docetæ]] and the Gnostics, who denied the union of the divine and human nature in Christ. The coming of Antichrist was believed to be foretold in the "vile person" of Daniel's prophecy, &nbsp;Daniel 11:21, which received its first accomplishment in Antiochus Epiphanes, but of which the complete fulfillment was reserved for the last times. He is identified with "the man of sin, the son of perdition." &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3. This interpretation brings Antichrist into close connection with the gigantic power of evil, symbolized by the "beast," &nbsp;Revelation 13:1-18, who received his power from the dragon (''I.E.,'' the devil, the serpent of Genesis), who was invested with the kingdom of the ten kings. &nbsp;Revelation 17:12; &nbsp;Revelation 17:17. The destruction of [[Babylon]] is to be followed by the rule of Antichrist for a short period, &nbsp;Revelation 17:10, to be in his turn overthrown in "the battle of that great day of God Almighty," &nbsp;Revelation 16:14, with the false prophet and all his followers. &nbsp;Revelation 19:1-21. The personality of Antichrist is to be inferred as well from the personality of his historical precursor, as from that of him to whom he stands opposed. Such an interpretation is to be preferred to that which regards Antichrist as the embodiment and personification of all powers and agencies inimical to Christ, or of the Antichristian might of the world. But the language of the apostles is obscure, and this obscurity has been deepened by the conflicting interpretations of expositors. All that the dark bints of the apostles teach us is, that they regarded Antichrist as a power whose influence was beginning to be felt even in their time, but whose full development was reserved till the passing away of the principle which hindered it, and the destruction of the power symbolized by the mystical Babylon. The word antichrist does not always mean openly opposed to Christ, but putting something in the place of Christ. Any person teaching any way to God, excepting through Christ, is Antichrist. Any person teaching any way of salvation, excepting through the blood of Christ, is Antichrist. John says that in his day, "Now are there many antichrists." &nbsp;1 John 2:18. The papal church, putting its traditions in the place of the Scriptures, putting the [[Virgin]] Mary, the saints, the Pope, the priest, good works, the mass, purgatory, etc., as the way of salvation, in place of salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is pre-eminently Antichrist. </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

<li> And to the "beast from the sea" (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1; &nbsp;17:1-18 ). <div> <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Antichrist'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/a/antichrist.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> '''''an´ti''''' -'''''krı̄st''''' ( ἀντίχριστος , <i> '''''antı́christos''''' </i> ): </p> <p> I. In the Old Testament </p> <p> II. In the New Testament </p> <p> 1. The Gospels </p> <p> 2. Pauline Epistles </p> <p> 3. Johannine Epistles </p> <p> 4. Book of Revelation </p> <p> III. In Apocalyptic Writings </p> <p> IV. In Patristic Writings </p> <p> V. Mediaeval Views </p> <p> 1. Christian </p> <p> 2. Jewish </p> <p> VI. Post-Reformation Views </p> <p> Literature </p> <p> The word "antichrist" occurs 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 which the word conveys appears frequently in Scripture. </p> I. In the Old Testament <p> Antichrist in the Old Testament </p> <p> As in the Old Testament the doctrine concerning Christ was only suggested, not developed, so is it with the doctrine of the Antichrist. That the Messiah should be the divine Logos, the only adequate expression of God, was merely hinted at, not stated: so Antichrist was exhibited as the opponent of God rather than of His anointed. In the historical books of the Old Testament we find "Belial" used as if a personal opponent of Yahweh; thus the scandalously wicked are called in the King James Version "sons of Belial" (&nbsp;Judges 19:22; &nbsp;Judges 20:13 ), "daughter of Belial" (&nbsp;1 Samuel 1:16 ), etc. The the Revised Version (British and American) translates the expression in an abstract sense, "base fellows," "wicked woman." In &nbsp;Daniel 7:7 , &nbsp;Daniel 7:8 there is the description of a great heathen empire, represented by a beast with ten horns: its full antagonism to God is expressed in a little eleventh horn which had "a mouth speaking great things" and "made war with the saints" (&nbsp; Daniel 7:8 , &nbsp;Daniel 7:21 ). Him the 'Ancient of Days' was to destroy, and his kingdom was to be given to a 'Son of Man' (&nbsp;Daniel 7:9-14 ). [[Similar]] but yet differing in many points is the description of Antiochus Epiphanes in &nbsp;Daniel 8:9-12 , &nbsp;Daniel 8:23-25 . </p> II. In the New Testament <p> 1. The Gospels </p> <p> In the Gospels the activity of Satan is regarded as specially directed against Christ. In the Temptation (&nbsp;Matthew 4:1-10; &nbsp;Luke 4:1-13 ) the Devil claims the right to dispose of "all the kingdoms of the world," and has his claim admitted. The temptation is a struggle between the Christ and the Antichrist. In the parable of the [[Tares]] and the Wheat, while He that sowed the good seed is the Son of Man, he that sowed the tares is the Devil, who is thus Antichrist (&nbsp;Matthew 13:37-39 ). our Lord felt it the keenest of insults that His miracles should be attributed to Satanic assistance (&nbsp;Matthew 12:24-32 ). In &nbsp;John 14:30 there is reference to the "Prince of the World" who "hath nothing" in Christ. </p> <p> 2. Pauline Epistles </p> <p> The Pauline epistles present a more developed form of the doctrine. In the spiritual sphere Paul identifies Antichrist with Belial. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:15 ). 2 Thessalonians, written early, affords evidence of a considerably developed doctrine being commonly accepted among believers. The exposition of &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 , in which Paul exhibits his teaching on the 'Man of Sin,' is very difficult, as may be seen from the number of conflicting attempts at its interpretation. See Man Of [[Sin]] . Here we would only indicate what seems to us the most plausible view of the Pauline doctrine. It had been revealed to the apostle by the Spirit that the church was to be exposed to a more tremendous assault than any it had yet witnessed. Some twelve years before the epistle was penned, the Roman world had seen in Caligula the portent of a mad emperor. Caligula had claimed to be worshipped as a god, and had a temple erected to him in Rome. He went farther, and demanded that his own statue should be set up in the temple at Jerusalem to be worshipped. As similar causes might be expected to produce similar effects, Paul, interpreting "what the Spirit that was in him did signify," may have thought of a youth, one reared in the purple, who, raised to the awful, isolating dignity of emperor, might, like Caligula, be struck with madness, might, like him, demand Divine honors, and might be possessed with a thirst for blood as insatiable as his. The fury of such an enthroned maniac would, with too great probability, be directed against those who, like the Christians, would refuse as obstinately as the Jews to give him Divine honor, but were not numerous enough to make Roman officials pause before proceeding to extremities. So long as [[Claudius]] lived, the Antichrist manifestation of this "lawless one" was restrained; when, however, the aged emperor should pass away, or God's time should appoint, that "lawless one" would be revealed, whom the Lord would "slay with the breath of his mouth" (&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:8 ). </p> <p> 3. Johannine Epistles </p> <p> Although many of the features of the "Man of Sin" were exhibited by Nero, yet the Messianic kingdom did not come, nor did Christ return to His people at Nero's death. Writing after Nero had fallen, the apostle John, who, as above remarked, alone of the New Testament writers uses the term, presents us with another view of Antichrist (&nbsp;1 John 2:18 , &nbsp;1 John 2:22; &nbsp;1 John 4:3; &nbsp;2 John 1:7 ). From the first of these passages ("as ye have heard that antichrist cometh"), it is evident that the coming of Antichrist was an event generally anticipated by the Christian community, but it is also clear that the apostle shared to but a limited extent in this popular expectation. He thought the attention of believers needed rather to be directed to the antichristian forces that were at work among and around them ("even now have ... arisen many antichrists"). From &nbsp;1 John 2:22; &nbsp;1 John 4:3; &nbsp;2 John 1:7 we see that the apostle regards erroneous views of the person of Christ as the real Antichrist. To him the [[Docetism]] (i.e. the doctrine that Christ's body was only a <i> seeming </i> one) which portended Gnosticism, and the elements of [[Ebionism]] (Christ was only a man), were more seriously to be dreaded than persecution. </p> <p> 4. Book of Revelation </p> <p> In the Book of Revelation the doctrine of Antichrist receives a further development. If the traditional date of the Apocalypse is to be accepted, it was written when the lull which followed the Neronian persecution had given place to that under Domitian - "the bald Nero." The apostle now feels the whole imperial system to be an incarnation of the spirit of Satan; indeed from the identity of the symbols, seven heads and ten horns, applied both to the dragon (&nbsp;Revelation 12:3 ) and to the Beast (&nbsp;Revelation 13:1 ), he appears to have regarded the <i> raison d'être </i> of the Roman Empire to be found in its incarnation of Satan. The ten horns are borrowed from Dan 7, but the seven heads point, as seen from &nbsp; Revelation 17:9 , to the "seven hills" on which Rome sat. There is, however, not only the Beast, but also the "image of the beast" to be considered (&nbsp;Revelation 13:14 , &nbsp;Revelation 13:15 ). Possibly this symbolizes the cult of Rome, the city being regarded as a goddess, and worshipped with temples and statues all over the empire. From the fact that the seer endows the Beast that comes out of the earth with "two horns like unto a lamb" (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11 ), the apostle must have had in his mind some system of teaching that resembled Christianity; its relationship to Satan is shown by its speaking "as a dragon" (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11 ). The number 666 given to the Beast (&nbsp;Revelation 13:18 ), though presumably readily understood by the writer's immediate public, has proved a riddle capable of too many solutions to be now readily soluble at all. The favorite explanation <i> '''''Nerōn Ḳēṣar''''' </i> (Nero Caesar), which suits numerically, becomes absurd when it implies the attribution of seven heads and ten horns. There is no necessity to make the calculation in Hebrew; the corresponding arithmogram in the Sib Or, 1:328-30, in which 888 stands for <i> '''''Iesous''''' </i> , is interpreted in Greek. On this hypothesis <i> '''''Lateinos''''' </i> , a suggestion preserved by Irenaeus (V, 30) would suit. If we follow the analogy of Daniel, which has influenced the Apocalyptist so much, the Johannine Antichrist must be regarded as not a person but a kingdom. In this case it must be the Roman Empire that is meant. </p> III. In Apocalyptic Writings <p> Antichrist in the Apocalyptic Writings </p> <p> Although from their eschatological bias one would expect that the Jewish Apocalyptic Writings would be full of the subject, mention of the Antichrist occurs only in a few of the apocalypses. The earliest certain notice is found in the Sibylline books (1:167). We are there told that "Beliar shall come and work wonders," and "that he shall spring from the Sebasteni (Augusti)" a statement which, taken with other indications, inclines one to the belief that the mad demands of Caligula, were, when this was written, threatening the Jews. There are references to Beliar in the Xii the Priestly Code (P), which, if the date ascribed to them by Dr. Charles, i.e. the reign of John [[Hyrcanus]] I, be assumed as correct, are earlier. Personally we doubt the accuracy of this conclusion. Further, as Dr. Charles admits the presence of many interpolations, even though one might assent to his opinions as to the nucleus of the Xii the Priestly Code (P), yet these Beliar passages might be due to the interpolator. Only in one passage is "Beliar" <i> '''''antichristos''''' </i> as distinguished from <i> '''''antı́theos''''' </i> ; &nbsp;Daniel 5:10 , &nbsp;Daniel 5:11 (Charles' translation), "And there shall rise unto you from the tribe of Judah and of [[Levi]] the salvation of the Lord, and he shall make war against Beliar, and execute everlasting vengeance on our enemies, and the captivity shall he take from Beliar and turn disobedient hearts unto the Lord." Dr. Charles thinks he finds an echo of this last clause in &nbsp; Luke 1:17; but may the case not be the converse? </p> <p> The fullest exposition of the ideas associated with the antichrist in the early decades of Christian history is to be found in the Ascension of Isaiah. In this we are told that "Beliar" (Belial) would enter into "the matricide king" (Nero), who would work great wonders, and do much evil. After the termination of 1,332 days during which he has persecuted the plant which the twelve apostles of the [[Beloved]] have planted, "the Lord will come with his angels and with armies of his holy ones from the seventh heaven, with the glory of the seventh heaven, and he will drag Beliar into [[Gehenna]] and also his armies" (&nbsp;Daniel 4:3 , &nbsp;Daniel 4:13 , Charles' translation). If the date at which Beliar was supposed to enter into Nero was the night on which the great fire in Rome began, then the space of power given to him is too short by 89 days. From the burning of Rome till Nero's death was 1, 421 days. It is to be noted that there are no signs of the writer having been influenced either by Paul or the Apocalypse. As he expected the coming of the Lord to be the immediate cause of the death of Nero, we date the writing some months before that event. It seems thus to afford contemporary and independent evidence of the views entertained by the Christian community as to Antichrist. </p> IV. In Patristic Writings <p> Patristic References to Antichrist </p> <p> Of the patristic writers, [[Polycarp]] is the only one of the [[Apostolic]] Fathers who refers directly to Antichrist. He quotes John's words, "Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is Antichrist" (7), and regards Docetism as Antichrist in the only practical sense. Barnabas, although not using the term, implies that the fourth empire of Daniel is Antichrist; this he seems to identify with the Roman Empire (&nbsp;Daniel 4:5 ). Irenaeus is the first-known writer to occupy himself with the number of the Beast. While looking with some favor on <i> '''''Lateinos''''' </i> , he himself prefers <i> '''''Teitan''''' </i> as the name intended (&nbsp;Daniel 5:30 ). His view is interesting as showing the belief that the arithmogram was to be interpreted by the Greek values of the letters. More particulars as to the views prevailing can be gleaned from Hippolytus, who has a special work on the subject, in which he exhibits the points of resemblance between Christ and Antichrist ( <i> On Christ and Antichrist </i> , 4.14.15. 19.25). In this work we find the assertion that Antichrist springs from the terms of Jacob's blessing to Dan. Among other references, the idea of Commodian (250 ad) that Nero risen from the dead was to be Antichrist has to be noticed. In the commentary on Revelation attributed to [[Victorinus]] of Petau there is, inserted by a later hand, an identification of Genseric with the "Beast" of that book. It is evident that little light is to be gained on the subject from patristic sources. </p> V. Medieval Views <p> Much time need not be spent on the <i> medieval </i> views of Antichrist in either of the two streams in which it flowed, Christian and Jewish. </p> <p> 1. Christian </p> <p> The Christian was mainly occupied in finding methods of transforming the names of those whom monkish writers abhorred into a shape that would admit of their being reckoned 666. The favorite name for this species of torture was naturally <i> Maometis </i> (Mohammed). Gregory Ix found no difficulty in accommodating the name of Frederic Ii so as to enable him to identify his great antagonist with "the beast coming up out of the sea": this identification the emperor retorted on the pope. Rabanus [[Maurus]] gives a full account of what Antichrist was to do, but without any attempt to label any contemporary with the title. He was to work miracles and to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. The view afterward so generally held by Protestants that the papacy was Antichrist had its representatives among the sects denounced by the hierarchy as heretical, as the <i> '''''Kathari''''' </i> ̌ . In various periods the rumor was spread that Antichrist had been already born. Sometimes his birthplace was said to be Babylon, sometimes this distinction was accorded to the mystical Babylon, Rome. </p> <p> 2. Jewish </p> <p> The Jewish views had little effect on Christian speculation. With the [[Talmudists]] Antichrist was named Armilus, a variation of Romulus. Rome is evidently primarily intended, but Antichrist became endowed with personal attributes. He makes war on Messiah, son of Joseph, and slays him, but is in turn destroyed by Messiah, Son of David. </p> VI. Post-Reformation Views <p> Post-Reformation Theories of Antichrist </p> <p> In immediately post-Reformation times the divines of the Romish church saw in Luther and the [[Reformed]] churches the Antichrist and Beast of Revelation. On the other hand the Protestants identified the papacy and the Roman church with these, and with the Pauline Man of Sin. The latter view had a certain plausibility, not only from the many undeniably antichristian features in the developed Roman system, but from the relation in which the Romish church stood to the city of Rome and to the imperial idea. The fact that the Beast which came out of the earth (&nbsp;Revelation 13:11 ) had the horns of a lamb points to some relation to the lamb which had been slain (&nbsp;Revelation 5:6 ). Futurist interpreters have sought the Antichrist in historical persons, as Napoleon III. These persons, however, did not live to realize the expectations formed of them. The consensus of critical opinion is that Nero is intended by the Beast of the Apocalypse, but this, on many grounds, as seen before, is not satisfactory. Some future development of evil may more exactly fulfill the conditions of the problem. </p> Literature <p> Bousset, <i> Der Antichrist </i> ; "The Antichrist Legend," <i> The Expositor </i> T, contains an admirable vidimus of ancient authorities in the subject. See articles on subject in Schenkel's <i> Biblical Lex. </i> (Hausrath); Herzog's <i> RE </i> , 2nd edition (Kähler), 3rd edition (Sieffert); <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> (Bousset); with [[Commentaries]] on 2 Thess and Revelation. A full account of the interpretations of the "Man of Sin" may be seen in Dr. John Eadie's essay on that subject in his <i> [[Commentary]] on Thessalonians </i> . </p>