The trigger word “Antichrist” is on everyone’s lips. Yet the term doesn’t appear that often in the Bible. This “Antichrist” is referred to as such only three times. However, there are several historical and current figures or institutions to which this designation could certainly apply. However, there is only one that fits all descriptions.
Inhalt / Content
There is not much “Antichrist” included
The word “Antichrist” appears only in a few places in the Bible. And only by one author, John, in his first and second letters. Specifically, in:
1 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.”
1 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.”
2 John 1:7:
“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.“
Other names of the adversary
The Bible doesn’t say much more about the literal “Antichrist.” However, there are other terms that certainly point to the anti-Christian power, or rather, to an anti-Christian power. These are “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), “son of perdition” (John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3), “abomination of the earth” (Revelation 17:5), and “mother of harlots” (Revelation 17:5).
The expression “son of perdition” even provides a direct reference to his character. For at one point (John 17:12), this designation clearly refers to the traitor Judas, son of Iscariot. Therefore, it is quite likely that the “son of perdition” mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians also made a similar reference to his character, thus placing the “man of sin” in the same category, 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;“.
Anti – Against and Instead
To better understand the term “Antichrist,” one must be aware that the Greek prefix “anti” has two meanings. First, there is the apparently well-known variant of “against, contrary to, opposite,” i.e., “against Christ.” Another variant, quite common in ancient Greek but uncommon today, is the meaning of “instead of, instead of,” i.e., “instead of Christ.”
The “Antichrist” according to 1 John 2:18
From 1 John 2:18, it is clear that “at the last hour” there will obviously be many antichrists, or rather, they already exist. One need only consider all religions outside of Christianity to quickly identify a consistently “anti-Christian,” or “anti-Christian,” attitude. This does not refer exclusively to the recognition that the human Jesus Christ actually existed, but rather to the true nature of Jesus Christ. Islam also recognizes Jesus (Isa), but only as a prophet, not as the incarnate Word of God, the Son of God (Info).
In an age of forced ecumenism, it was considered a “blasphemy” to emphasize religious differences. Instead, one should focus on and work toward commonalities. Thus, the common denominator for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam was found in the common ancestor Abraham. Thus, the term “Abrahamic Faith” was born, and places of communal worship were promptly established, such as the “Abrahamic Family House” in Abu Dhabi (Info).
The “Antichrist” according to 1 John 2:22
John emphasizes that the Antichrist, or rather an Antichrist, denies the sonship of Jesus and also denies that Jesus Christ is actually the Messiah. The word “Christ” comes from the Greek word “Christos,” which in turn means nothing other than “anointed one,” or “Messiah” in Hebrew. Jesus the Christ thus means “Jesus the Messiah.” As in the previous verse, this applies to religions outside of Christianity. While the existence of Jesus is not denied, he is said not to have been the Messiah.
The “Antichrist” according to 2 John 1:7
Those deceivers who deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh thereby reveal themselves as such. This statement is a bit tricky, because it presupposes a complete understanding of the term “in the flesh,” as the Bible actually expresses it.
Few people deny that Jesus Christ was a human being. Jesus was in flesh and blood, and anyone who openly testifies to this cannot therefore be the Antichrist. This would be the logical conclusion. However, if one examines the term “in the flesh” more closely, the situation looks completely different.
The term “flesh”
The “flesh” described in the Bible is always opposed to the “spirit.” Man either lives according to the flesh or according to the spirit, and this makes a significant difference and simultaneously emphasizes the full meaning of the term “in the flesh.” An important clue can be found in Galatians 5:16, 17:
“But I say, walk by the spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you cannot do the things you desire.”
Here it becomes clear that “flesh” and “spirit” each occupy an opposing position. They are incompatible and even fight against one another. This is further clarified in Galatians 5:24-25:
“And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.“
The person living in the flesh thus follows the desires of the flesh; in short, he is not only inclined to sin, but also commits sin. In contrast, the person living in the spirit, guided by the Holy Spirit, is still trapped in his body inclined to sin, but is perfectly capable of recognizing sin for what it is, abhorring it, and even refraining from it. Paul’s separate consideration of 1 Corinthians 15:44 also applies:
“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.“
Actually come “in the flesh”?
Now comes the crux of the matter regarding Jesus Christ as a human being. Just as John 1 testifies that the Word of God became flesh and walked on the earth (John 1:1-3; 14), Paul emphasizes the nature of the flesh of Jesus Christ in Romans 8:3-4:
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.“
Jesus Christ came in the “flesh of sin.” This does not mean that Jesus was sinful; He remained without any sin, but Jesus nevertheless existed in the same body, with the same nature, that of a normal human being. This was necessary to maintain righteousness. For Jesus Christ wanted to prove that humans can live without sin if they allow themselves to be led by the Spirit. Jesus could have fallen into sin, since Satan also tried several times to bring Jesus down. A mystical appearance of Jesus in a mystical body would not have fulfilled this requirement of being equal to humans.
In summary, “in the flesh” simultaneously signifies the fallen nature of man, inclined to sin. The desirable counterpart is life “in the Spirit.”
Antichrist denies coming “in the flesh”
In 2 John 1:7, John emphasizes that the deceiver and Antichrist are those who deny that Jesus Christ came “in the flesh.” Is there such a religion that actually denies this? Yes, there is such a religion. However, this is not immediately apparent, for the deception is too sophisticated for that.
Jesus Christ was born as a normal human being. Conceived by the Holy Spirit and carried by Mary. He was born as a normal baby and grew up as usual. He neither fell “suddenly” like a piece of fruit from a tree, nor did He appear out of nowhere and be found in a basket in the Jordan River. Being born in the “flesh of sin” therefore presupposes that the mother of Jesus must have been equally of flesh, that is, of a sinful nature.
However, there is a “circle of belief” that believes the mother of Jesus, Mary, to be completely sinless, without spot or wrinkle, mystically freed from “original sin” from her birth onward, and therefore completely immaculate. She is the second Eve, as she was before the first Fall. Of unfallen nature. This is clearly Mary in the Roman Catholic version.
In conclusion, according to the Roman Catholic view of Mary, Jesus Christ could not have been born in the “flesh” (of sin), because according to this church, Mary never possessed this state. The Roman Catholic Church denies the coming “in the flesh” according to 2 John 1:7, not directly, but clearly and explicitly. Not to mention the other fables and legends surrounding Mary based on pagan traditions.
Only one institution meets all descriptions
Accordingly, the terms “son of perdition,” “man of sin,” “abomination of the earth,” and “mother of harlots” demonstrate that all these criteria are fully met by the papacy and its religious institution, the Roman Catholic Church (Info). The proof, with a view to history and the present, is already provided by the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation (Info).
Yes, there are many “antichrists.” Caricatural figures repeatedly appear, portraying themselves as the “true savior” (Example). Jesus Christ also warned against such entirely serious comedians in Matthew 24. They should simply be ignored, for they are deceivers. But there is only one institution to which all descriptions of the earthly representative of the great adversary apply, and that is the “Holy See,” or the Roman Catholic Church.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
Deutsch
English
