Antichrist

Antichrist (pronounced an-ti-krahyst)

(1) In Christian theology, a particular personage or power, variously identified or explained, who is conceived of as appearing in the world as the principal antagonist of Christ.

(2) An opponent of Christ; a person or power antagonistic to Christ (sometimes lowercase).

(3) A disbeliever in Christ (often initial lowercase)

(4) A false Christ (often initial lowercase).

1400s: From the Middle English, from the (pre 1150) Late Old English antecrist (an opponent of Christ, an opponent of the Church, especially the last and greatest persecutor of the faith at the end of the world), from the Late Latin Antichrīstus, from the Late Greek ἀντίχριστος (antíkhristos & antíchrīstos (I John ii.18)), the construct being aντί- (anti-) (against) + khristos (Christ); the Greek Χριστός meaning "anointed one".   This was the earliest appearance of anti- in English and one of the few before circa 1600.  In contemporary English, it’s often (but not always) preceded by the definite article: the Antichrist.  Antichrist is a noun, antichristian is a noun & adjective, antichristianism is a proper noun, antichristianly is an adverb and antichristic is an adjective; the noun plural is antichrists.

The Antichrist and the End of Days

The Antichrist is mentioned in three passages in The New Testament, all in the First and Second Epistles of John (I John 2.18-27, I John 4.1-6, 2 John 7).  Common to all is the theme of Christian eschatology, that the Antichrist is the one prophesied by the Bible who will substitute themselves in Christ's place before the Second Coming.  Biblical scholars note also the term pseudokhristos (false Christ) in the books of Matthew (chapter 24) and Mark (chapter 13), Jesus warning the disciples not to be deceived by false prophets claiming to be Christ and offering "great signs and wonders".  Other imagery which can be associated with an Antichrist is mentioned in the Apostle Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians and, of course, the Beast in the Book of Revelation.  The scriptural language is redolent with drama, the Antichrist spoken of or alluded to as the “abomination of desolation”, “the son of perdition”, “the man of lawlessness” or “the beast” (from earth or sea).

For most of the Middle Ages, it was the scriptural construct of the Antichrist as an individual which dominated Christian thought; the Antichrist born of Satan but yet an earthly tyrant and trickster, perfectly evil in all he was and did because he was the diametric opposite of Jesus Christ, perfect in his goodness and deeds.  Jesus Christ, the son of God, was born of a virgin into earthly existence and the Antichrist, the son of Satan would be born of the antivirgin, a whore who, like her evil offspring, would claim purity.  More than a fine theological point, it’s also quite deliberately a hurdle for Christ to cross in his Second Coming.  Where Christ was God in the flesh, the Antichrist was Satan in the flesh and point was to beware of imitations.  This was the framework of the medieval narrative, well understood and hardly remarkable but writers fleshed it out to create essentially two threads.  For centuries there was the idea of the single Antichrist who would accrue his disciples, have his followers accept him as the Messiah and put to the sword those who did not.  He would then rule for seven years before until his defeat and destruction by (depending on the author) the archangel Gabriel or Christ the true and his divine armies, all before the resurrection of the dead and the day of Final Judgement.

For two-thousand-odd years, there has been speculation about the identity of the Antichrist. 

By the late Middle Ages, another narrative thread evolved, this one with a modern, structuralist flavor and one more able to be harnessed to a political agenda.  Now the Antichrist was presented not as a force of evil outside the Church but the evil force within, the deceiver perhaps the Pope, the institution of the papacy or the very structure of the Church.  This was a marvellously adaptable theory, well suited to those seeking to attack the institutional church for it rendered the Antichrist as whatever the construct needed to be: the flesh incarnate of a pope, the sins and corruption of a dozen popes and his cardinals or the very wealth and power of the institution, with all that implied for its relationships with the secular world.  That was the position of the more uncompromising of those who fermented the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.  The monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) saw about him venality, depravity and corruption and knew the end of days and the Final Judgement was close, the pope the true “end times Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ”.  Unlike the long tradition of antipopes, this was true eschatology in action.  There have been many Antipopes (from the Middle French antipape, from the Medieval Latin antipāpa) although just how many isn't clear and they came and went often as part of the cut and thrust of the Church’s ever-shifting alliances and low skulduggery.  While some of the disputes were over theological or doctrinal differences, sometimes they were about little more than whose turn it was.

The Reverend Dr Ian Paisley, European Parliament, Strasbourg, France, 11 October 1988.

For centuries, Antichrist was a label often used, Nero, Caligula and the prophet Muhammad all victims, sometimes with some frequency and the epithet was often exchanged in the squabbles between Rome and Constantinople.  In the modern, mostly secular West, while the Antichrist has vanished from the consciousness of even most Christians, in the pockets of religiosity which the general godlessness has probably afforced, Antichrists appear to have multiplied.  Like “fascist” in political discourse, “Antichrist” has become a trigger word, a general category where disapprobation is not enough and there’s the need to demonise though even the hunter can be captured by the game.  In October 1988, Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła 1920–2005; pope 1978-2005), who had often warned of the Antichrist waving his antigospel, was interrupted during a speech to the European Parliament by the Reverend Dr Ian Paisley (1926–2014; leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) 1971-2008 & First Minister of Northern Ireland 2007-2008), who loudly denounced him as ''the Antichrist.''  Standing and holding a large red placard displaying his message, Dr Paisley shouted out ''I renounce you as the Antichrist!''.  He was soon ejected, his holiness seemingly unperturbed.  The late Reverend had a long history of antipathy to popery in general and the “Bachelor bishop of Rome” in particular and, when later interviewed, told the press ''I don't believe he is infallible. He doesn't have the power to turn wine into the blood of Christ.''

Coming usually from the evangelical right, south of the Mason-Dixon Line, it seems to play well and it’s been aimed at the usual suspects including Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Bill Gates, George Soros, at least two ayatollahs and, perhaps most plausibly, crooked Hillary Clinton.  Interestingly, although never denying practicing witchcraft or voodoo, crooked Hillary Clinton did feel the need to deny being the Antichrist.  In What Happened (Simon & Schuster, 2017, 512 pp ISBN: 978-1-5011-7556-5), a work of a few dozen pages somehow padded out to over five-hundred using the “how to write an Amazon best-seller” template, a recounting of the denial is there and the exchange does have a rare ring of truth.  It’s a shame that didn’t extend to the rest of the book; claimed to be a review of the 2016 presidential election, it might have been an interesting apologia rather than a two-inch thick wad of blame-shifting.

Never despair.  In the Christian tradition, the Antichrist will finally be defeated by the armies of God under the leadership of Christ with the Kingdom of God on earth or in heaven to follow.  Good finally will prevail over evil.