Posted on 01/04/2018 6:12:01 PM PST by Salvation
Sermon and Deeds of the Antichrist, Luca Signorelli (1499)
There is much lore about the antichrist (especially among certain Evangelicals) that is out of proportion to the attention Scripture pays to the concept, and more importantly is at possible variance from what is certainly taught. It easily becomes fodder for movies and novels: the antichrist figure steps on the scene, deceiving many, and mesmerizing the whole world with apparent miracles and a message of false peace.
But is this really what or whom the Scriptures call the antichrist? I would argue not, for in order to create such a picture one would have to splice in images from the Book of Revelation and the Letter to the Thessalonians that do not likely apply to antichrists.
In fact, the use of the term antichrist occurs only in the Johannine epistles. It does not occur in the Book of Revelation at all, though many have the mistaken idea that it does. There are plenty of beasts, dragons, harlots, demons, and satanic legions in Revelation, but no mention of antichrists.
Many also stitch the teaching about antichrists together with St. Paul’s teaching on the “man of lawlessness” (also called “the lawless one”) who is to appear just before the end. The lawless one may well be the stuff of movies, but calling him the antichrist may be to borrow too much from a concept that is more specific. While it is not inauthentic to make a connection between them (some of the Church Fathers seem to), it is not necessarily correct to do so.
In this reflection I take the position that it is improbable that the antichrist and the man of lawlessness are one and the same. In order to explain why, let’s first look at the occurrences of the term antichrist in St. John’s Epistles.
Note two things about antichrists. First, St. John (writing in the first century) teaches that he has already appeared. In calling this the “last hour,” St. John and the Holy Spirit do not mean that the Second Coming will take place in the next sixty minutes or even in the next few years. Rather, the teaching is that we are in the Last Age, the Age of the Messiah (also called the Age of the Church), when God is sending out His angels to the four winds to gather all the elect from the ends of the earth (cf Mark 4:21). Sadly, St. John also teaches that the antichrist has already come as well.
Second, after saying that the antichrist has come, St. John immediately clarifies by saying that actually many antichrists have appeared.
Thus St. John does not seem to present the antichrist as a single figure who has come. Rather, he says that there are many antichrists.
And what do these antichrists do? They perpetrate heresy, error, and false teaching. St. John notes in particular that heretics who deny that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) are antichrists. He also calls antichrists those who deny Christ having come in the flesh.
What does it mean to deny Christ having come in the flesh? It means reducing the saving work of God to mere appearances by claiming that Jesus did not actually take up a human nature but only appeared to do so. By extension, these same antichrists reduce the Christian moral and spiritual life to mere gnostic ideas rather than a true flesh-and-blood, body-and-soul change in our lives.
Many today extend these denials of the incarnation by undermining the historic authenticity of the Gospels, doubting or outright denying what Jesus actually said and did. Some of them say that Jesus’ resurrection was not a bodily one, but rather that His “ideas live on.” There can be no more fundamental heresy that to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. As St. Paul says, And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain … if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins … [and] we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:14-17).
Thus St. John, along with all the early Church, emphatically upholds an incarnational faith. We could actually touch our God and He touched us by taking up our human nature. He suffered on the cross and died. And though His suffering was tied to His human nature (for His divine nature is impassible), Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, hypostatically united to His human nature, suffered and died for us. It was this same human nature that God raised from the dead, gloriously transformed.
John takes up this theme elsewhere when he says that Christ came in water and in blood, not in water alone (cf 1 John 5:6). A certain heretic of that time, Cerinthus, held that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity departed just before Jesus’ passion. John refutes this, insisting that just as at His baptism Jesus’ divine nature was affirmed (This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased), so also was it affirmed during the shedding of His blood on Calvary (the inspired word of God records the centurion, on seeing the manner of Jesus’ death, saying, Surely this was the Son of God (Mat 27:54)). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, though of two natures, is one person, and He did in fact die suffer and die for us.
Thus to St. John, the essence of the antichrist is denial that Jesus came in the flesh. An antichrist is one who would relegate Jesus’ presence among us to mere appearances or His teachings to mere abstractions or ideals rather than transformative realities.
By extension, it can be argued that the term antichrist refers to all deceivers, though only logically, not specifically in the text. St. John does not indicate that he means the term antichrist this broadly, but in a wider sense all heresy pertains to the antichrist because Jesus Christ is the truth. Jesus teaches through His apostles that to deny the truth is to deny Christ Himself; it is to deny truth itself and thus to be an antichrist.
So perhaps this is not fodder for movies and novels after all; sorry! And that’s a shame because the term antichrist is so catchy! This brings us to a discussion of the man of lawlessness (or the lawless one).
What or who is the man of lawlessness whom St. Paul mentions and how is he related to the antichrist? As I stated above, I do not think there is a connection. To see why, let’s consider what St. Paul teaches:
Note the following crucial differences between antichrists and the lawless one:
Jesus also speaks of those who will lead many astray, though He speaks of them in the plural and is likely referring to occurrences in the first century during the time leading up to the war with the Romans in 70 A.D: For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24).
As you can see, there are a lot of moving parts here as well as a lot of singulars and plurals to sort out and time frames to consider. Permit me the following conclusions:
All that said, I believe that equating this lawless one with one of the beasts of Revelation or with the antichrist may be too speculative, and possibly inaccurate.
I hope I haven’t toyed with your “movie script” too much, but Scripture is nuanced in these matters and we do well to avoid reducing its teachings to popular concepts and catchy notions.
Scripture does speak to us of the end times and of difficult times preceding them, but the information is often given in general, even cryptic, terms. It is as if Scripture wants to tell us to be ready and to let us know that we don’t need to (and shouldn’t want to) know all the details. Just be ready, and when those times set in remember that Christ has already won the battle. Viva Christo Rey!
Monsignor Pope Ping!
The book of Daniel makes it clear that the Antichrist is a person.
Though I am not a Catholic, there is not a posting from Msgr. Pope that doesn't lend itself to a bit more enlightenment as a Christian.
Once again, Pope, Charles nails it.
The author of the article is a type of antichrist, substituting his word for God’s Word.
Or that no man is delivered or preserved from the world-wide snares of Satan except through Mary; and God grants His graces to no one except through her alone?
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary18a.htm
Perhaps the biggest lie of Roman Catholicism is the blending of the necessity of Mary with Jesus. In fact, much of Rome's teaching on Mary contradicts the New Testament.
Scripture teaches that it is only through Christ that we gain Heaven. There is no mention of having to go through Mary for anything.
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:6 NASB
Christianity and Roman Catholicism....there is a difference.
Then are all non-Catholics who interpret Scripture in their own ways also antichrists?
There are many AntiChrists, not ‘the’.
MSM are AntiChrists.
Democrats are AntiChrist.
Islamics are AntiChrists.
Book of Revelation is but one AntiChrist interpretation.
An AntiChrist hates liberty & responsibility.
Islam. Would not be surprised if the antichrist with a capital “A” comes as the leader of the Islamic world.
Walid Shoebat’s “God’s War on Terror” spells it all out.
Simple, he who denies that the crucified Jeasus is the Christ. I John
The term anti Christ never appears in the book of Revelation. I don’t know why so many just assume anti Christ and the beast of revelation are the same thing. I think the author is on the right track however he seems to be making the same assumption.
Or maybe it’s just Islamism and not an individual.
It's unclear to me what sort of Jesus you believe in, however. Probably a discarnate, Docetic Jesus who never truly came in the flesh, hmm?
The original type of both Christ and Antichrist/beast was King Solomon, oddly enough.
Nope. I believe in Jesus in the Scriptures. What Rome believes of Mary is not found in the Scriptures. That is the error of Rome.
It was Mad Moe. The war between Islam and everything else is obvious.
If there is an “anti-Christ” person today, I nominate the follower (or all of them).
1 George Soros
2. Nancy Pelosi
3. Chuck Schumer
4. Little Kim Un Chee
5. Premier Xi of Red China
6. Putin
7. Ayatollah Khemanei
8. The head of ISIS, Baghdadti
9. Hillary Clinton
10. MY MAIN MAN - OBAMA
The collective personification of EVIL in today’s world.
>>Do not Roman Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ when they say we can only come to Christ through Mary? Or that no one can enter Heaven but through her means?<<
You are seriously mistaken. This is NOT the teaching of Roman Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.