Does the Bible really prophesy THE Antichrist?

Great Debates
1

Recently, after hearing someone I know seriously make the ridiculous declaration, “George Bush is the Antichrist,” I thought about something which a church I attended taught. They introduced me to the idea that the bible does not predict the coming of a single person which will be the antichrist. This is something in which I do not have much knowledge aside from the following:

The bible gives two definitions for antichrist.
a)"…he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22, KJV)

b)those “who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (2 John 7(also referred to in 1 John 4:3), KJV)

The bible also says,

So I came upon the notion that there are actually many(millions) of antichrists, by definition, and have been scince the time of Christ. I was given an unclear bible study where the “the spirit of the beast”(briefly referred to in Ecclesiastes 3:21) was directly connected to the beast of John’s Revelation and to what was referred to as the “spirit of the antichrist.” What the bible study was teaching was that the bible contains a common symbolism included in what were called(in the study), “the spirit of man,” the “spirit of the antichrist” and the “spirit of the beast.” This symbolic concept basically epitomized all that was not the Spirit of God within man.
What I am seeking with this thread are general biblical views about a single future antagonist known as the antichrist. Please provide factual biblical information, websites, doctrines and views.

2

The “Beast” of Revelation has nothing to do with The “Antichrists” (plural) mentioned in the letters of John. The word “antichrist” appears four times in the NT, all of them in the letters of John. Here they are:

**1 John 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.**

“Antichrists” was a term that John coined for any opponents or enemies of Christianity. In particular, he was referring to “false” teachers who were teaching heretical brands of Christianity. He was using the term descriptively and generically. It was not intended to denpote a supernatural entity and it had no relationship to the “Beast” of Revelation.

The Beast was just a coded reference to the Emperor of Rome. Apocalyptic literature was a heavily coded and allegorical way of communicating messages to fellow believers in such a way that the enemy (i.e. the Romans) would not understand it. All of Revelation is about the Roman empire, and the promise that God will take revenge on that empire.

Revelation was conflated with the “antichrist” references in 1 and 2 John, along with the Jewish apcalyptic book of Daniel (which used the 5th Babylonian exile as a metaphor to discuss the 2nd century Maccaeban revolt against Antiochus.) by the Millenielist movement only in the last 100 years or so. The whole Damien/Late Great Planet Earth thing is a relatively new development in Christianity, and is (like the Rapture) pretty much confined to a certain segment of American Christians. Revelation was never interpreted as a prediction of future events (except for the very ending, the bit about final judgement) before the 1800’s and is still not interpreted that way by most Christian churches. The millenialist interpretation has taken such a firm root in American popular culture, though, that many people have no idea how contrived it is.

BTW, here is the Ecclesiastes quotation in context:

18 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [2] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [3] goes down into the earth?”
22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

As you can see it has nothing to do with either the Beast of Revelation or with John’s Antchrist. It’s a literal reference to animals. There is nothing at all in the Hebrew Bible about either Christ or an Antichrist.

3

Thanks Diogenes, and to clarify, the bible study didn’t include a reference to Ecclesiastes. I agree that that scripture, of course, was not in any way pre-referencing the beast of Revelation. And also, what bible you were quoting? may I ask.
Many thanks for your input.

4

I was quoting the NIV (New International Version). The KJV says “beasts,” instead of “animals” but obviously it’s beasts in the prosaic sense of the word, not an apocalyptic one.

5

Incidentally, not all christians believe the second coming is in the future.

The preterist viewpoint insists that the apocolypse occurred in 70AD.

It is a much stronger case, IMO than all the hoot & holler on TV designed to sell books and tapes.

This would be an excellent column topic for Cecil, or possibly Dexter.

6

Painkitten- have you read the IMO excellent writings of Ken Gentry & the late David Chilton? I’m still preMil but some degree of preterism works in my EndTimes views (I do believe in a literal future return of Jesus tho).

To address the OP- I’d say the Man of Sin passage in II Thessalonians 2 does indeed indicate a personal AntiChrist leader- whether this refers to (in Revelation 13) the political SeaBeast or the religious LandBeast (aka the False Prophet) I’m not sure. Preterist interpretations regard him variously as a Roman ruler (such as Nero or Titus) or a Christian-persecuting Judean High Priest (such as Ananus, the short-reigning killer of Brother James of Jerusalem).

7

FriarTed,

Not completely, although excerpts of Chilton’s Paradise Restored were what led me to explore the concept further. Gentry is a regular contributor to the preterist archives, so of course I have read many of his ideas.

I was surprised at the attacks Chilton recieved from premil writers. Some were thoughtful rebuttal, but others (Gary North) were reminiscent of inquisition style accusations of herecy. A shame for all involved, I felt. Of course, some of Chilton’s work is described as mere rant, so maybe it wasn’t totally undeserved.

If you would care to recommend any rebuttal links to preterism, I’d be very thankful.

8

Edit: Gentry was a regular contributor. Sorry.

9

Its mentioned pretty well in Daniel, also.
There are tons of books explaining all this and I most definitely believe it.
But no one will know who he is at first, so no guesses will be correct.
He will be noticed when he signs a peace treaty for Israel, and it works.

10

Well, I guess Sharon won’t be the antichrist.

11

BTW, I have never seen any reason to believe in “an” Antichrist (as in some single individual bringing doom upon the world). As noted above, the only Scriptural references to antichrist are John’s four comments on any person who opposes Christ being “anti” Christ. Cherrypicking lines out of context from vastly different books with different authors in order to build up a scenario for foretelling the future that was somehow missed by 1800 years of Christianity does not seem to be a fruitful exercise. (Trying to wedge random verses from Daniel or other pre-Christian texts into the mix makes it worse, given that the Jewish concept of the messiah was radically different than the one developed by Paul and expounded upon by later Christian authors. Certainly, Daniel speaks of persecutors, but creating a devil==>beast==>anti-Christ link from Daniel requires a fairly torturous interpretation.)