Mandie Russell
Staff Writer
We get a mental picture of a crookedly smiling, attractive, middle-aged man waving to the multitudes from a pulpit based on lies. He will be the downfall of mankind.
This dramatic scene has been played up for hundreds of years, but what is the real story behind the Antichrist?
Dr. John F. Wilson, Pepperdine professor of New Testament and director of the Institute for the Study of Archaeology and Religion, recently appeared on a History Channel program regarding the Antichrist.
Contrary to what many believe, the Antichrist is a difficult and controversial subject. Throughout history, the meaning of “the Antichrist” has changed dramatically. Even Pepperdine students have varying opinions about what “the Antichrist” could be.
“Someone who is trying to trick people into thinking he’s Christ,” freshman Amanda Gordon said. “Like an evil villain.”
Her definition appears to sum up the belief of the general population. However, the opinion of the academic world seems to be moving in quite a different direction.
“There is no Antichrist,” said Randall D. Chesnutt, Pepperdine’s Religion Chairperson. “The Bible says there are many: an antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come.”
Similarly, Dr. Wilson specified that the Antichrist is “not what we think it is.” He added: “Antichrists are people who deny that Christ has come in the flesh.”
Their reference is to the only place in the New Testament in which the word “antichrist” is used at all: 1 John 2:18-22.
After stating that there are many antichrists among the earth even in his time, John says, in verse 22: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.”
Although this seems straightforward, the term “antichrist” has become so commonly misused that many evangelical Christians disagree.
A search for an evangelical definition of “antichrist” brings many deceptive headlines: “The Antichrist has come,” “A wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and the humorous “Dubya is the Antichrist.” All of them have a common thread running through: The Antichrist is one man, namely, the man who will come about during the end times.
But the direct Biblical definition is, in many ways, contrary to how most, specifically evangelicals, think of the word “antichrist.” However, the manipulation of the biblical text to change “the antichrists” into one personified Antichrist is not a new development.
“There has always been a sense that [the Antichrist] was a major representative of Satan on Earth,” said Wilson.
This dates back as early as Emperor Nero, whom some labeled the Antichrist, and has continued throughout history: Napoleon and Hitler are examples of symbols of evil who were called “Antichrist.”
But, if not an accurate interpretation of the Bible, where does the confusion over this label come from?
In the biblical book of Revelation, John speaks about the “Beast,” and the “man of sin.” Over the years, many have connected these people with the word “antichrist.”
However, according to Wilson, the apocalyptic references are not related to the concept of the Antichrist.
“People have used these to create something; they have made the whole to be more than the sum of its parts,” Wilson said.
The Apocalypse has always been a daunting question for mankind, and for centuries people have been trying to predict the end of history.
They have always been wrong.
“Jesus said that no one but the Father knows about that hour—the end of mankind,” Wilson said.
Not only does no one know what will happen in the end times, Wilson said that apocalyptic literature, including the book of Revelation in the Bible, is often misinterpreted.
“It’s like reading a cookbook and interpreting it as poetry,” he said. “You would be missing the intended message of the cookbook.”
Many assumptions have been made in the interpretation of apocalyptic literature.
“Every generation thinks it’s the end of the world,” Wilson said. “They say, ‘Red means this,’ ‘Seven means that,’ and ‘The Beast is the European Union.’”
All generations see what they interpret as special signs of evil, but these have been occurring throughout history, and it has clearly never yet been the end of the world.
Biblical writers say that eventually, good will overcome evil at the end of the world. Over the years, many have used this to make a connection between the Antichrist and the Apocalypse which most scholars now say is not there.
“The idea that one Antichrist will come at the end of history did not come from the New Testament,” Chesnutt said. “There will be no big scenario.”
This ties into the belief held by a growing number of intellectuals that the Antichrist, or, more accurately, any of the many antichrists, could be something besides a person.
An antichrist, according to Chesnutt, could be a person, thing, doctrine, or anything else. It does not have to be embodied.
“There is evil in many forms,” said Chesnutt. “We don’t need one label.”
Wilson too believes that the label of “antichrist” is unnecessary because it is most often used in a way entirely separate from the Bible.
He prefers to talk about “institutionalized evil,” which more accurately represents the concept which most have come to understand as a definition for the Antichrist.
So fear not, the Antichrist is not the one “evil villain,” as depicted by such popular literature as the Left Behind series.
No one can be sure of the “end times,” but antichrists have existed throughout history, and the world has thus far survived them more or less unscathed.
07-11-2006
