Basic HTML Version
682
Historically, there have been different opinions respecting Antichrist. In the ancient Church
many maintained that Antichrist would be a Jew, pretending to be the Messiah and ruling at
Jerusalem. Many recent commentators are of the opinion that Paul and others mistakenly
thought that some Roman emperor would be Antichrist, and that John clearly had Nero in mind
in Rev. 13:18, since the letters in the Hebrew words for “emperor Nero” are exactly equivalent
to 666, Rev. 13:18. Since the time of the Reformation many, among whom also Reformed
scholars, looked upon papal Rome, and in some cases even on some particular Pope, as Anti-
Christ. And the papacy indeed reveals several traits of Antichrist as he is pictured in Scripture.
Yet it will hardly do to identify it with Antichrist. It is better to say that there are elements of
Antichrist in the papacy. Positively, we can only say: (a) that the anti-Christian principle was
already at work in the days of Paul and John according to their own testimony; (b) that it will
reach its highest power towards the end of the world; (c) that Daniel pictures the political, Paul
the ecclesiastical, and John in the book of Revelation both sides of it: the two may be successive
revelations of the anti-Christian power; and (d) that probably this power will finally be
concentrated in a single individual, the embodiment of all wickedness.
The question of the personal character of Antichrist is still a subject of debate. Some maintain
that the expressions “antichrist,” “the man of sin, the son of perdition,” and the figures in
Daniel and Revelation are merely descriptions of the ungodly and anti-Christian principle, which
manifests itself in the opposition of the world to God and His Kingdom, throughout the whole
history of that Kingdom, an opposition sometimes weaker, sometimes stronger, but strongest
toward the end of time. They do not look for any one personal Antichrist. Others feel that it is
contrary to Scripture to speak of Antichrist merely as an abstract power. They hold that such an
interpretation does not do justice to the data of Scripture, which speaks, not only of an abstract
spirit, but also of actual persons. According to them “Antichrist” is a collective concept, the
designation of a succession of persons, manifesting an ungodly or anti-Christian spirit, such as
the Roman emperors who persecuted the Church and the Popes who engaged in a similar work
of persecution. Even they do not think of a personal Antichrist who will be in himself the
concentration of all wickedness. The more general opinion in the Church, however, is that in
the last analysis the term “Antichrist” denotes an eschatological person, who will be the
incarnation of all wickedness and therefore represents a spirit which is always more or less
present in the world, and who has several precursors or types in history. This view prevailed in
the early Church and would seem to be the Scriptural view. The following may be said in favor
of it: (a) The delineation of Antichrist in Dan. 11 is more or less personal, and may refer to a
definite person as a type of Antichrist. (b) Paul speaks of Antichrist as “the man of sin” and “the
son of perdition.” Because of the peculiar Hebrew use of the terms “man” and “son” these
expressions in themselves may not be conclusive, but the context clearly favors the personal
idea. He opposes, sets himself up as God, has a definite revelation, is the lawless one, and so