ANTICHRIST (Avrixpto.ros). This term occurs only in the first and second epistles of John (I Ep. ii. 18, 22 ; iv. 3 ; 2 Ep. 7). In one instance the plural is used, dprixptcrrot (I Ep. ii. 18). We have to inquire— I. Into the meaning of the term. The preposi tion dvrt in composition denotes either substitution or opposition. Of the former we have instances in such words as dyrOctoads, a viceroy, proconsul, etc.; and of the latter in dvropadoopos, a philosopher of an opposite school, dm-aroma-rip, a rival, etc. 'ArrixpLaros may, therefore, mean either one who puts himself in the place of Christ, a pseudo-Christ, or one who opposes Christ ; either one tentans semet ipsum Christum ostendere ' (Irenmus, Adv. Hoer. v. 25), or one who is ad versarius, contrarius Christo' (Augustine in Ep. loan, Tr. 3), bdprtos (Theophylact.) The latter is the more common force of the dvri when so compounded ; and most agree in giving it this force in the word before us. Antichrist, then, means one who is opposed to Christ.
2. Is Antichrist a term of collective import, or is it the designation of an individual ? The ancient Fathers, for the most part, regarded the Antichrist as a man, the instrument of Satan, who should pretend to be the Christ, and some went the length of supposing that he would be Satan himself incar nate ; they all agreed in regarding him as a being who was to appear at some future time, immedi. ately before the second advent of Christ. With these views the language of John seems incompa tible, not only because he says there are many antichrists,' but because he declares that antichrist had already come. To obviate this, it has been suggested that when he says, now there are many antichrists,' he intends to intimate that already were the heralds and forerunners of the antichrist apparent, and that in this he finds an evidence that he himself, in whom their wickedness would cul minate, would soon appear, and that it was the last time. Those who take this view, for the most part, identify the antichrist of John with the ttv Opcoros rrys agaprias of Paul (2 Thess. ii. 3). So De Wette, Lucke, Diisterdieck, etc. The objec tion to this is, that it is founded on an artificial construction of John's words, in which nothing is found as to the antichrists being the precursors of the Antichrist, or as to the latter being the con centration and essence, as it were, of the former. John's words would rather lead to the conclusion that in his view the Antichrist and the antichrists were one ; the former being merely a collective term for the whole to whom this character belonged. This appears in 1 Ep. ii. 18 ; but it is especially manifest in 2 Ep. 7, where the roXXot 7rXcivot at the
beginning of the verse became O irXcivos Kat byrixpurros at the close. This has led many to adopt the opinion of Bengel, who says that John, sub singulari numero omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit.' According to this view, the meaning of the apostle is, that the prediction of the coming of Antichrist was already in course of fulfil ment, as the many antichrists sheaved (Huther, in loc.) 3. It still remains to inquire, What object or class of characters this term is meant to describe ? Those who suppose that some individual is intended by the term Antichrist, either seek to identify him with some person whom they regard as especially the enemy of Christ, in which sense the Pope of Rome is frequently fixed upon as Antichrist ; or they suppose that the evil which is as yet seen only par tially and diffusively in the many antichrists will ultimately be condensed in one monster of iniquity, who shall appear immediately before the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, many adopt the opinion of Bengel, who says that Antichristus pro antichristianismo sive doctrina et multitudine hominum Christo contraria.' Neither of these views seems correct. The former is without any authority from Scripture, is purely conjectural ; the latter affixes to the apostle's language a wider meaning than he himself allows, for he expressly says (i Ep. ii. 22), He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.' This must be accepted as the apostle's own description of the object he designates by this term ; so that we must seek for the Antichrist in the mass of those who deny the Father and the Son. These, according to the apostle's preceding statement in verse 22, are they who deny that Jesus is the Christ. Such deny both the Father and the Son, for he who denies the identity of Jesus as the Christ, denies the Son, for the Son is none other than 'Inaoi)s OXptcrros (not an Aeon of the name of Christ, who never became man ; nor Jesus who is not the Christ, or is not the Logos, according to John i. 14) ; but he that denies the son denies the Father also, not only be. cause Son and Father are logical correlatives. but because the Father and the Son are so essentially united that the Father throughout without the Son is not the true God, but a mere empty abstraction. The essence of the Father is love ; but the love is only realised in the Son ; and he that denies the latter denies the Father, or God in the truth of his essence. What such a calls God is not the living God, but a mere idea, an erScAoy (Huther in Meyer's Conzmentar ueb. d. N. T. in loc.) W. L. A.