The apostle John is the only one in the entire Bible who specifically writes about an Antichrist and actually names him as such. Other wordings about the adversary are complementary. However covertly this Antichrist may act, the juxtaposition of the Gospel with the teachings of the adversary clearly identifies the real Antichrist.
Prominent, yet barely recognized
The “Antichrist” is one of the major themes of Christianity. With the progression of global unrest, the increasing frequency of extreme natural events, and a look at biblical prophecies, the warning calls of a “soon-coming Antichrist” are becoming ever louder. The word “Antichrist” has become a buzzword guaranteed to prick up one’s ears.
Less well known or less widely used are other titles of the one, supposedly yet-to-come earthly adversary of Jesus Christ. Scripture also describes the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the “son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), the “mother of harlots” (Revelation 17:5), and the “abomination of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). However, these appearances are not regularly associated with the “one great Antichrist.”
Man of Sin – Judas Character
The “man of sin” appears twice, and the respective attributions certainly provide an indication of his nature and character.
Jesus Christ Himself used this term in His persistent prayer to the Father, John 17:12:
“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
Without a doubt, Jesus is speaking of Judas, the son of Iscariot. This disciple was the one who, with a kiss—normally a sign of love—reported Jesus’ betrayal to the temple guards.
The second passage is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Paul describes to the young church in Thessaloniki the soon(!) active adversary,
“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;”
und auch Vers 4:
“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.“
The first mentioned man of sin was Judas, a supposed follower of Jesus Christ. Judas followed Jesus Christ and the other disciples for the entire 3.5 years, yet he had evil intentions. He managed the cash register, continually embezzled money, and ultimately betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Hypocrisy, greed, lying, unfaithfulness, and even cynicism are thus Judas’ characteristics. This is an important clue for the second mentioned man of sin, who was already active at the time of the apostles’ correspondence with the churches.
The adversary has long been acute
Just a few verses earlier, Paul makes it clear that this is not an adversary who will become active “sometime in the distant future,” but rather that he was already present at that time. 2 Thessalonians 2:5-7:
“Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.“
Paul had already told them, but only verbally. In the letter, however, Paul visibly refrains from mentioning specific names. A sure sign that if the letter were intercepted on its way to the church and read by the Roman occupying forces, it could cause serious problems. History shows that it was precisely the power of Rome that still held the adversary back from his actions.
However, it took another 300 years before the reluctant, apostate power began to make significant strides upwards. Emperor Constantine issued a Sunday law in 321, convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 (a significant milestone), and moved his seat of government to Constantinople. The Bishop of Rome immediately set about filling the vacuum left behind with lightning speed.
John described this “Antichrist”
The term “Antichrist” appears only in a very few places in the Bible. Specifically, this attribute is found only in the New Testament, and even then only in the two letters of John.
1 John 4:3:
“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.“
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.“
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.“
Anti also in the sense of “instead of”
In principle, the “Antichrist” can be anyone who opposes Jesus Christ. There are “more than enough of them” in every era. The Greek prefix “anti” is interpreted accordingly: someone who represents an opposing force. However, it becomes more specific when one considers that the syllable “anti” has a second meaning, depending on the context. It can also mean “instead of.” Thus, not necessarily just “anti-Christ,” but also “instead of Christ.”
In contrast to the very numerous “anti-Christians,” there is only a very small number of those who claim to be “in place of Christ.” In other words, they call themselves “representatives of Christ.” The Latins would say “Vicarius Christi” (“Vicar of Christ”). Others would even formulate this as “Vicarius filii Dei” (“Vicar of the Son of God”) (Info). Since this could be further enhanced, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) used the following expression:
“The Pope takes the place of the true God in this world.“
Was it only in the Middle Ages? No, even in modern times, as Pope Leo XIII (1878 to 1903), the declared model for the current Pope Leo XIV, made clear in his letter “Praeclara Gratulationis Puplicae” (1894).:
“But since We take the place of the Almighty God on this earth…”
…as well as other “enlightening” statements from the Church of Rome – here.
Antichrist as such not prominently evident
It would be clumsy if the secret adversary of God, active for some 1,700 years, were to blatantly reveal that he is actually the servant of the dragon mentioned in Revelation 13 (specifically Revelation 13:2). Did Judas Iscariot openly display his true character and intentions? “I am stealing from you, and I will not hesitate to hand over the Messiah to his executioners for 30 pieces of silver” would have been a bit too open and would have quickly ended his destructive deeds.
Therefore, the “second man of sin,” described by Paul, will also act covertly, posing as a true follower of Jesus, portraying himself as particularly pious, and even claiming to be the embodiment of the Kingdom of God on earth. As the earthly representative and sole point of contact for the salvation of humanity. He will never play with open cards, but will cloak his true abyss in Christian garb. He deceives people, as Judas Iscariot did. He cannot deceive God, or rather, Jesus Christ.
This self-conception of the Roman Church, that there could be no salvation for humanity outside its body, developed very early on. This is also confirmed by the statement of “Saint” Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 to 258):
“No one can have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.”
Therefore, the Church of Rome is also “mother and teacher” (Source)
“The Church of Rome as a teacher”, Matthew 23:10:
“Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.“
1 John 4:3 & 2 John 1:7
John identifies the Antichrist with the one who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Like Paul, John emphasizes that he “is already in the world,” and thus not in the distant future, meaning today and “just before” (Info).
“But the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t deny that Jesus came in the flesh,” one argument might run. Yes, it does! It does, but not directly and thus easily recognizably. Rather, indirectly, but very concretely.
What does “in the flesh” mean? Is it simply the material of man, or is there more to it? When Scripture speaks of “flesh” in relation to man, it is always in connection with his sinfulness, or the tendency to sin due to his fallen nature. The following applies especially to Christians who believe that faith IN Jesus alone is sufficient, without striving to adopt the nature of Jesus themselves.
Paul explained what the term “in the flesh” means, Romans 8:1-2:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.“
Since there were apparently problems of understanding in the church in Galatia, Paul also clarified here, Galatians 5:16-18:
“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.“
Clearly, “coming in the flesh” refers to the fallen, sinful nature of man.
Catholic Mary fairy tale comes into play
The Roman Catholic Church certainly teaches that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. The fact that Mary remained a virgin forever, according to Roman doctrine, is the first discrepancy with the written word. More important, however, is the state of Mary taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The keyword here is “Immaculateness.”
According to this, Mary, who “experienced special grace,” was freed from all original sin. She was, in a sense, the second Eve before the first Fall. Without sin, without blemish, and always remaining so. The “Mother of God” had the condition of unfallen humanity. She was therefore not sinful flesh.
Church of Rome indirectly denies
It follows logically that, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ could not have been born “in the flesh” (sin). This was an absolute prerequisite for salvation through Jesus Christ to be effective. Paul explains this 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.“
If Mary was without sin (without “original sin”), Jesus Christ could not have come forth in “the likeness of sinful flesh.” This is thus clearly denied by the Church of Rome, and therefore 1 John 4:3 clearly applies to the Roman Catholic Church.
An alternative (purely theoretical) possibility would be the assumption of a “sinful Holy Spirit.” But not even the Church of Rome has dared to do that, because that would be too blatant to conceal the actual Judaic characteristics of the Church.
“This is the deceiver and the Antichrist,” says 2 John 1:7. This is exactly how seduction works: through deception, lies, and deceit. Jesus Christ warned against such seduction several times in Matthew 24!
1 John 2:18
This statement by John indicates that a time will come when many people will increasingly speak of a “coming Antichrist.” Hasn’t this already been the case? Indeed, calls for an imminent “first-time coming Antichrist” are growing rapidly. John also describes that by the time warnings about an Antichrist are issued, numerous Antichrists will have already appeared.
There have indeed been numerous “anti” figures in the sense of anti-Jesus throughout the ages. Not to mention that the “Man of Sin” began his work as early as the 4th century. However, according to “anti,” he acts in the sense of Jesus’ vicar.
If the calls for an “Antichrist” become louder and more numerous, then the last hour has come!
1 John 2:22
“Jesus the Christ.” First, let me clarify that “Christ” is not a surname for Jesus, but a title. Christ comes from the Greek “Christos,” which means nothing other than “the anointed one.” The Hebrew word for this is “Mashiach” (“Messiah”). Thus, the term Christ is nothing other than Messiah. Jesus the Christ means “Jesus the Anointed One” or “Jesus the Messiah,” depending on the language used.
In principle, one simply needs to delve blindly into the multitude of religions around the world to very likely encounter a denial of Jesus Christ and His Father. The Gospel holds the (logical) monopoly in this regard. Even Islam, where Jesus (Isa) plays a significant role, denies the sonship of Jesus. The attribute “the Anointed One” is missing anyway. According to Islam, that is reserved for the much more well-known “final prophet.”
The Church of Rome teaches the relationship between Father and Son, but does not shy away from simply calling the “highest earthly representative” in this institution “Holy Father.” Jesus’ important reference in Matthew 23:9,
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
is simply ignored with justifications like, “after all, you also call your parents mother and father.”
Excessive arrogance of the Roman Catholic priesthood
At first glance, it would seem relatively inconspicuous, but for the blasphemous self-image of the Roman Church regarding the priesthood. Not only does the Roman Catholic Church deny that death in connection with the blood of Jesus was necessary for the salvation of humanity (here), but it also attributes to itself the “parenthood” of Jesus. As strange as it may sound, this is emphasized by none other than the “saint” and “doctor of the church” Alphonsus Liguori in his work “Dignities and Duties of the Priest.” It states on page 32:
“The saint assigns the reason of the superiority of the priesthood over Mary; she conceived Jesus Christ oxAj once; but by consecrating the Eucharist, the priest, as it were, conceives him as often as he wishes, so that if the person of the Redeemer had not as yet been in the world, the priest, by pronouncing the words of consecration, would produce this great person of a Man-God. “O wonderful dignity of the priests,” cries out St. Augustine; ” in their hands, as in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, the Son of God becomes incarnate.“
Hence priests are called the parents of Jesus Christ:’ such is the title that St. Bernard gives them, for they are the active cause by which he is made to exist really in the consecrated Host. Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father.”
Complete Inversion
The Catholic priest recreates Jesus Christ, precisely this mystical transformation of the slice of bread into the “true flesh” of Jesus Christ (the Eucharist). In doing so, the priest offers the sacrificial flesh of Jesus to the Father. A malicious inversion of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and also a mockery.
For the Father gave His Son, not for Himself, but for the possible salvation of humanity. John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.“
This sacrifice, the bloody death of Jesus Christ, was unique and final. Abraham was allowed (or had to experience) in his time the character and purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus (Genesis 22). Abraham was called to sacrifice his only beloved son on Mount Moriah. God only allowed the sacrifice to begin and then stopped Abraham. His son was never actually sacrificed. Instead, God provided a sacrifice by offering a ram.
Could anything be more presumptuous? The Catholic priesthood, as the Creator of Jesus, was sacrificed to be placed at the feet of the Father as a sacrificial offering, in the pagan manner, to appease Him. And this was done repeatedly, too.
The Bible certainly isn’t exaggerating here.
Is it any wonder that Scripture also calls this Church of Rome, based entirely on the paganism of Baal and sacrifice-demanding Moloch, the “mother of harlots” and the “abomination of the earth”?
The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, in particular, clearly demonstrate, with today’s perspective on history and the present, that it is the papacy that represents the great adversary on this earth and acts accordingly (Info). In addition to Martin Luther, numerous other Protestants also recognized this (Info). The Papacy IS the Antichrist, who has long been acting with all the cunning of a serpent (antichrist system – Info).
And what does the vast majority of the evangelical world do? They watch, spellbound, events in the Middle East, for further signs of the “fulfillment” of prophecy, while the “secret pre-rapture” is imminent and the construction of a third temple is in preparation. Because the “Antichrist must arrive soon.” Instead of looking at the Rome-Washington axis to see what is actually unfolding before their now-blind eyes, they do so. This is how distraction and seduction work!
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation 19:20
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
