The word “antichrist” is a term used in the Bible that’s unique to John’s epistles—no other New Testament writer uses this exact term. But just because this unique word is used by only one writer doesn’t necessarily mean that the concept is novel or exclusive to John.
To start, let’s take a look at its first instance.
“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 2:18
Dismissive Attitudes
Some people dismiss the idea of the Antichrist as a single individual altogether, stating from the above passage that there are “many antichrists.” For instance, Adam Clarke, in his commentary on 1 John 2:18, gives a long list of suspects that Christians in times past have theorized were the Antichrist, to which Clarke dismisses: “We need not look for this imaginary being in any of the above exclusively.” Thus he concludes in a very practical way, “every enemy of Christ, every one who opposes his reign in the world, in others, or in himself, is an antichrist; and consequently every wicked man is an antichrist.”
I can certainly commiserate with Clarke’s sentiments, as theories of the Antichrist’s identity abound, and if they had seemed to run rampant in Clarke’s time (1760-1832), I can only imagine how much more they have multiplied with the advent of the internet, as the subject seems to be a favorite topic for online discussion forums. But just because many have gotten this question wrong in the past does not obligate us to fall into the same error, nor are we obliged to fall into the opposite error of dismissing the weight of this passage altogether.
With all due respect to those who would insist that the term “antichrist” solely refers to a general spirit or attitude that is in opposition to Jesus as the Christ (meaning anointed one, or Messiah), if we look a little closer at John’s words, I think we will see something truly substantial. We’ll hopefully see that the Antichrist, as viewed as a singular individual, is very far from Clarke’s estimation of being merely an “imaginary being.” (For the purpose of clarity, for the remainder of this article I will write the word Antichrist out with a capital “A” to indicate when I’m talking about a specific individual who has the title of the Antichrist as opposed to the more generic sense of the spirit of antichrist).
“You have heard…”
John first tells his readers “you have heard that antichrist shall come…” Jesus and several New Testament writers use the phrase “you have heard” to refer to teachings that were more or less common knowledge. A baseline knowledge of Scripture and widespread teachings were more or less taken for granted. Jesus uses the phrase multiple times in his Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard that it was said… [you shall not kill, commit adultery, etc.]” James uses it too “you have heard of the patience of Job…” (Js 5:11). And in addition to direct references to the Old Testament, there’s also references to contemporary events and knowledge too. Paul uses it of his own conversion testimony “you have heard of my former life in Judiasm…” (Gal. 1:13).
In all these examples, the pattern usually runs thus: “you have heard [A], but let me tell you about [B].” It’s usually used to build on what’s already common knowledge. “You already know about [A], so now in light of this, let me build on it and show you something from a different angle, which is [B].”
So when John uses the wording “you have heard that antichrist shall come…” that was [A], and he sought to build upon it with [B], namely “even now there are many antichrists.” I would paraphrase it thus “you’re already aware from other prior teachings that there will be a future Antichrist coming, but I want you to realize that even at this present time there are already many antichrists at work.”
So in the case of Adam Clarke’s comments, he was very correct in delineating and drawing out meaning for [B] pertaining to the overall nature and spirit of antichrist. But I disagree with his dismissal of the foundational understanding of [A], that is, that there would also be a singular Antichrist.
The Antichrist as Common Knowledge Among Early Christians
You have heard that antichrist shall come… On the surface, this seems to imply two things, (i.) that it was a single individual, and (ii.) that it was common knowledge among his readers. But if this was indeed common knowledge, where did it come from? What (or whom) might John be referring to?
A Man of Many Names
One passage that has quite a few parallels to the one in 1 John 2 comes from the apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2.
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (ESV)
In verse 3, Paul makes mention of a specific person, whom he calls “the man of lawlessness” (or “man of sin” in the KJV). In the very same verse, he’s given another alias, “the son of destruction” (or “son of perdition” in the KJV).
But take note of verse 4 especially, where Paul notes that this man will oppose all objects of worship and every god (or God). Here the word oppose has as its primary Greek particle the word anti—the very same particle that forms the word John uses in anti-Christ. This “son of destruction” will be anti-god and oppose all that is worshipped—and will insist on others worshipping him instead. This is very close to the distinguishing mark that John places on all those that are anti-Christ. “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22).
The will be and the not yet
But the similarities between John’s Antichrist (in 1 John 2) and Paul’s Son of Perdition (in 2 Thes. 2) don’t end there. In both instances, we’re given a sense that their influence and power is both already here, and not yet in its fullest and final potential.
The “will be”
John
“you have heard that antichrist shall come…” (vs 18)
Paul
“the lawless one will be revealed…” (vs 8)
The “already”
John
“the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (vs 3, chapter 4)
Paul
“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.” (vs 7)
No mere interpretive novelty
The characteristics of this man—one who will enter the Jewish temple, deny God and Christ, and demand to be worshipped—when taken as a set of criteria of Satan and the kingdom he seeks to set up, begin to form a cohesive narrative that is evident throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
Consider this flow of usage in the Bible.
Daniel > Jesus > (John and Paul)
Daniel “Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate… And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods.” Daniel 11:31, 36a (emphasis added)
Jesus “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place…” (Mat. 24:15)
Semantic Confusion
Regardless of one’s interpretation of John’s usage of “antichrist” and if it is merely a generic term for anything opposing Christ—Christians and Bible readers must still grapple with many other references throughout the Old and New Testaments. Despite the sour taste left by those who have sloppily sought to apply the moniker of the Antichrist to the latest political or religious leader of the day (which produces an understandable aversion to deal with this verse), there is still the matter of “the son of destruction” and the “abomination of desolation.”
The Antichrist: Come and Gone?
Besides dismissing the notion of the Antichrist as solely being descriptive of a general spirit that resists Christ, there is another interpretation that’s taken which has a similar outcome.
The thought runs thus: yes, “the Antichrist” and “the son of perdition” do indeed refer to a specific person in history. But these “end times” scriptures were all referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.
Many times Scriptures have multiple fulfillments, both a contemporary meaning and a future meaning. For instance, God gave Isaiah the sign of a child being born (Is. 7:14), which had a dual meaning, first for the prophet himself and a son who was born in the prophet’s own lifetime, but much more it was in reference to a future child, Emmanuel, whom a virgin would conceive, giving a much deeper meaning to the phrase “God with us.”
Likewise, many of these Scriptures seem to have a contemporary application (such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans), but we get a lot of clues that this was not the ultimate fulfillment of these prophecies.
For instance, take the “son of perdition” that’s frequently associated with the Antichrist. Paul writes of his demise, “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming” (2 Thes. 2:8).