Who Is, Are, Was, Were the Antichrist(s)?—III

The four Scriptures that use the term “antichrist” are as follows:

I 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.”

I John 2:22—“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”

I 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 it is in the world.”

II John 7—“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

That’s it, the only Scriptures that use the term “antichrist.” Please note that none of these Scriptures are in the book of Revelation, yet premillennial commentaries of that book are full of references to the “Antichrist.”

Notice some things John says about the “antichrist.” First, there are “many antichrists,” not just one. It is very important to note that the HOLY SPIRIT, the ultimate author of John’s writings, does not limit “antichrist” to just one being. Plus, they were already in the world in John’s day. Is the “future fuehrer” that old?

But who are “they,” John? Anyone “that denieth the Father and the Son,” (I John 2:22), “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (I John 4:3), “who[ever] confess[es] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (II John 7). John clearly, to his readers, identifies who these “antichrists” were. But for us to understand exactly about whom John is writing, we need some knowledge of the historical situation in the church in the late first century, when the beloved apostle was writing. Let me briefly overview the historical background behind John’s letters.

By 80 A.D., the Jewish people, as a whole, had rejected Christianity, and there were very few Jewish converts. Most of the converts to Christianity now were Gentiles. The separation between church and synagogue was complete; the controversy over justification by faith vs. the law of Moses had largely died out, and the influx of Gentiles into the church, with their heritage of philosophical thought, was beginning to affect doctrinal teaching., Thus, the later books written in the New Testament deal with this problem, after the earlier writings (especially Paul’s) had argued so vociferously about the law of Moses and its relationship to Christianity. The book of Hebrews was likely the final breaking point, along with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

These new Greek Gentile converts were interested in the person of Christ—who was He? If He was God, how could He die? And if He died, how could He be God? And thus there was a tremendous debate over the nature of Christ, which occupied the church, literally, for the next several centuries (and still exists, to a point), and gave us such interesting things as Arianism, Monothelitism, and Monophysitism. Most of the important early church “councils” were called to try and settle this problem--Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451, the final of which settled the issue—truthfully. The particular problem that the apostle John was dealing with was an early form of Gnosticism. What was Gnosticism?

Briefly, Gnosticism was built on the premise that the spirit is good and matter is evil. Salvation consists of escape from the realm of matter into the realm of spirit; the means of escape were numerous, but most needful was knowledge, by which man can rise above the earth-bound chains of matter into the heavenly apprehension of truth. This knowledge (Greek, gnosis) could be attained only by those who were initiated into the inner secrets of the group—sort of like a modern cult. Since they believed that matter (including the human flesh) was evil, some Gnostics were extreme ascetics, some extreme libertines. Both believed that the “body” was evil. Now, since matter, including the body, was evil, how could the infinite, pure spirit called God have anything to do with a material body? Gnostics, therefore, had two basic views about Christ. One, He was not really human, but only apparently so, or two, the Christ-spirit entered Jesus’ body at baptism and left Him before He died. But “God” never could have possibly “become flesh.”

The apostle John is obviously combating these ideas in his writings, especially the first one, i.e., that Jesus was not really human. In John 1:14, he plainly stated “the word became flesh and dwelt among men.” In I John 1:1, he immediately contradicted the Gnostic notion: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life”—we saw Him, we heard Him, looked upon Him, we touched Him. He who denied and “confess[ed] not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh…is a deceiver and an antichrist” (II John 7). And there were “many” of them in John’s day and the coming centuries (I John 2:18). John’s strictures against “knowledge” (the Gnostic form) and their lack of love for the brethren (because of the Gnostics’ belief in their superior knowledge) are found frequently in his letters. The full development of Gnosticism was not until the 2nd century, so John was probably fighting a precursor, Docetism, which argued that Jesus only “seemed” to come in the flesh. But be that as it may, the Bible is very clear who these “antichrists” were: Gnostic or pre-Gnostic heretics who denied the true nature of the Lord Jesus. Gnosticism is not with us anymore, at least in its early forms, thus these “antichrists” do not exist today. The idea that the “Antichrist” is some future dictator or tyrant simply is not supported by the Biblical evidence. It is important, yea, essential, that we have some knowledge of ancient history and the setting in which Biblical books were written. Otherwise, we also could be swept into the errors of premillennialism and other false notions.

Let us be careful in our handling of the Biblical text that we speak only as it speaks and not be misled by claims that have no basis in Biblical truth or historical reality.