Who Is, Are, Was, Were the Antichrist(s)?--II

Regarding the “antichrist” down through history, some Bible students have maintained that there was a Jewish “antichrist” legend taken up by Christians. I have found no historical proof of this, thus the apostle John (the only biblical writer who uses the term “antichrist”) got his language from the Holy Spirit and not Jewish custom. Others have suggested that the “antichrist” is not a person, but a principle, where there has also been the idea that the “antichrist” is some historical personage. This last idea is, by far, the most popular down through the centuries.

Early references to the antichrist were to Roman emperors Caligula (37-41 A.D) or Nero (54-68). There was also the idea that Simon Magus (of Acts 8 fame) was the “antichrist”; a long, and interesting, “history” (mythical) followed Simon the sorcerer, of which it is not relevant to pursue in this series. Nero was especially popular in the early centuries following Christ (i.e., the 2nd through 4th centuries). No one knew where Nero’s grave lay, so there were occasional sporadic rumblings, especially during times of persecution, that he would imminently return from the dead. According to Augustine and Jerome, many people believed that the apostle John also was not dead, but sleeping, and would come forth at the same time as Nero and testify against the emperor, anointing him as the “antichrist.” This, obviously, never happened.

Other claims as to who the “antichrist” is were equally extraordinary. Two early Christian “fathers,” Iranaeus and Hippolytus, writing in the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries, argued that the “antichrist” would spring from the tribe of Dan—Deuteronomy 33:22 reads, “Dan is a lion’s whelp and he shall leap from Bashan,” and even Jacob, in Genesis 49:17, predicted “Dan shall be a serpent by the way…that bites the horse’s heel.” Very clear references to the “antichrist”! However, these “powerful” arguments gave way to other (equally?) weighty tomes. In the 4th century, the Arian heresy was nominated for the role of “antichrist.” Cyril of Jerusalem, a 4th century bishop) suggested that the “antichrist” was a magician who would take control of the Roman empire. Many Protestants, after the Reformation, equated the Pope with the “antichrist.” An 1864 volume of the Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell’s monthly journal, quotes an article from the Prophetic Times stating that French emperor Louis Napoleon had all the signs of becoming the “antichrist.” Not many years ago, Henry Kissinger was nominated for the role, and it is not surprising that many believers today are suspicious that Barack Obama might be this dastardly fellow. Well, Barack certainly doesn’t seem to be very interested in spreading Christianity around the world, that’s for sure.

The above is a very cursory examination of the “antichrist” down through history. And all of this is very curious, given the fact that the term “antichrist” is found in only four Scriptures in the entire Bible. Talk about building a mighty structure of a very thin foundation…Well, in our third, and final, article in this series, we will look at these four Scriptures and see if we can determine who this “antichrist” was—or actually, “antichrists”, for there were more than one.