Is the pope, or the next pope, the Antichrist?

Further, "That man of sin (will) be revealed, the son of perdition." There was once a Man of righteousness — the Saviour; but He was rejected. There will be a man of sin — the son of perdition — "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." I am aware that many people apply this to the Pope of Rome. I do not for a moment agree with them, though regarding that system as a frightful delusion, even Babylon. But I dare not say that the apostasy has arrived yet, and it is a sorrowful thing to use Scripture with a party aim, or for controversial objects; it is a sorrowful thing in the presence of growing evil, which pervades both Protestant and Catholic countries alike — a sorrowful thing to cast such a stone from one to the other. No, beloved friends, the apostasy is the result of despising the gospel, of trifling with the truth, of keeping up forms that are unreal, and then casting them off with shame.

The name ἀντίχριστος signifies an opposer of Christ. It is used only by John in his first and second epistles, though those opposed to Christ are referred to by others under different names. It is important to distinguish between an antichrist and the antichrist. John says, "as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;" whereas "he is the antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:18, 22. He is the consummation of the many antichrists. To deny Jesus Christ come in the flesh is the spirit or power of the antichrist, but it eventuates in a departure from the special revelation of Christianity: 'they went out from us.' 1 John 2:19; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 7. Now this clears the ground at once of much that has obscured the subject. For instance, many have concluded that Popery is the antichrist, and have searched no farther into the question, whereas the above passage refutes this conclusion, for Popery does not deny the Father and the Son; and, in Revelation 17, 18, Popery is pointed out as quite distinct from 'the false prophet,' which is another name for the antichrist. It is fully granted that Popery is anti-christian, and a Christ-dishonouring and soul-deceiving system; but where God has made a distinction we must also do so. Besides Popery there were and there are many antichrists, which, whatever their pretensions, are the enemies of Christ, opposers of the truth, and deceivers of man.

It should be noted that though Papal Rome is one of the worst of the antichrists, and the one that has had sway for the longest period; yet she is not what is called in scripture the Antichrist or Man of sin: she is rather the anti-church. He also is found in the Revelation as a beast, having two horns like a lamb, and speaking as a dragon; and also as the false prophet. Rev. 13:11; Rev. 20:10. See ANTICHRIST.

The distinctness of this person is confirmed by the words of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, “That opposeth and exalteth himself against (or, above) all that is called God or object of veneration, so that he should himself sit down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” The lawless one is to be a sinner beyond sinners, the man of sin, and desiring to be God, claiming the honour of the Supreme on earth, in His temple, not in mere earthly things or personal vain glory like Herod in Acts 12. The Christ who was God, became on earth a bondman to glorify His God and Father at all cost. It is a mere imposture for the Pope to dub himself vicar of Christ and head of the church on earth, while acknowledging formally the Lord in heaven. But for this reason he does not fulfill the arrogant self-exaltation of this future adversary who raises himself above all that is called God or object of religious veneration. The temple of God, literally in Jerusalem before the age ends, will be used to support his blasphemous claim. Many of the Jews will be back there in unbelief and will receive him, while a godly remnant flee as the Lord directed.

I will try to give a few reasons to show why it cannot be the pope of Rome that is here referred to under the title of "the man of sin." In the first place, as we have seen, Scripture tells us that the man of sin opposes and denies the living and true God, not giving God a place, saying that he himself is God. Secondly, he denies the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, says that he is the Messiah, the Christ, and that he is the person to whose coming the Scriptures refer. Without saying one thing in favour of popery, but believing it to be entirely contrary to the mind of God, yet justice would forbid that I should say that the pope himself shows that he is God, or that he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that he is seated in the temple of God, which marks Jerusalem as its locality, forbidding worship to any God but himself nor can it be said that he openly and avowedly denies the Father and the Son, and the fact that Jesus Christ has come in flesh. Why, the very motto of the pope of Rome is that he is "God's vicar on the earth." It is, doubtless, because there is so much terrible evil associated with the system of popery that Christians have been led somewhat hastily, and without weighing the Scriptures, to associate it with that system of harlotry that we find spoken of in the Revelation as being "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." But popery and the beast are two distinct lines of truth, as thirteenth and seventeenth of Revelation show. And I believe Satan has helped to foster this wrong conclusion, in order that he might the more quietly and gradually work out this mystery of iniquity, of which we are told in one place that it "doth already work," and in another, that "even now there are many antichrists." The eyes of many have been closed to the terrible system which Satan has at work round about us; and certainly, if Christians were aware of it, they would see the importance of clinging to the Lord Jesus, feeling that under His care only could they be safe from the many and dangerous snares which are laid to entrap them. Satan is actively and successfully bringing in a flood of infidelity. Then, again, this person who is spoken of as "the man of sin" is to continue his open career a limited time only for forty-two months. You will also find at the close of the seventeenth chapter of Revelation that the harlot is destroyed by the kings and beast, and their kingdom given to the beast. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon [or rather, "and"] the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (vv. 16, 17.) This shows that the system of popery will be set aside by the kings of the earth. After bearing the burden of this unchaste woman for a long time, the kings and nations grow weary of her, cast her off, hate her flesh, rob her of her earthly riches and glory, and then give their allegiance to the beast. So popery really will have to give way and make room for "the man of sin" — "the beast."

While there may be lesser antichrists many, the definition of the Antichrist marked out by prophecy is, according to the apostle John, such as to describe, not a concealed, but an open enemy. "Who is the liar," he asks, "but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). Thus there is no pretence of Christianity whatever, even the least orthodox. The pope does not deny, — he affirms, — that Jesus is the Christ: be never pretended to be the Christ, but only His vicar. Antichrist is, according to the full meaning of the word, "one in the place of Christ," but not His vicar: he is himself the Christ, and denies that Jesus is; and so denieth the Father and the Son, — the Christian revelation in its whole extent. Thus he does not, in the common idea of this, sit in the temple of God at all; for in the Church he is not, even by profession. The papacy, for all these reasons, cannot be the "man of sin;" the pope is only one who exhibits certain similar features, and thus foreshadows the great apostate.

But there is further light from God cast on the man of sin, the son of perdition (ominous as are these indications of evil beyond precedent and measure), who is to be revealed before the day comes which is to be his destruction. "He that opposes and exalts himself exceedingly against every one called god, or object of veneration, so that he sits down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (ver. 4). There is no sufficient warrant for the words "as God" in the Received Text as in our Authorised Version. They rather soften the force, where the true text leaves the assumption in its unmitigated arrogance.

"Considering the grave difficulties which the former opinion underlies, almost all the doctors have judged that it is not ancient Rome which is spoken of in the prophecy, but another Rome yet future, in which will be verified all the crimes as well as the terrible chastisement here denounced against her. And when is all this to happen? It is to happen, they say, and with good reason, in the days of Antichrist. But to reconcile this ingenuous confession with the honour and consolation of the sacerdotal city (to save which is the aim of both opinions), they make certain suppositions, and lay them as the basis on which their whole edifice may rest. These are as follows. First, the Roman empire is to endure until the end of the world. Secondly, that empire which now is (and for so many years has been) so dismembered that hardly a relic of it is to be seen, shall, toward the last time, recover its ancient greatness, magnificence, and splendour. Thirdly, the heads of that empire in those last times shall become, not only infidel and iniquitous, but even professed idolaters. Fourthly, they shall without much difficulty make themselves masters of Rome, establish in it anew the court of the Roman empire; and thereupon Rome shall resume that grandeur, wealth, profusion, majesty, and glory, which it displayed in ages past, as, e.g., in the time of Augustus. Fifthly, that impious race shall root out from Rome the Christian priesthood, and likewise all the faithful who will not renounce their faith: whereby Rome, being free from that great hindrance, will set up anew the worship of idols, and return to be as idolatrous as before.

"The Antichrist" is a title only found in John's first epistle (1 John 2:18-22). Other titles belonging to the same transgressor may be found scattered over the Book of God. Almost from the beginning of Christianity there have been antichrists, but this does not touch the fact of a personal Antichrist yet to come, with whom no others can be confounded. Thus John writes: "Little children, it is the last time (or hour); and as ye have heard that the Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John 2:18). "Antichrist" means one who sets himself in opposition to Christ, and this manifestly where Christ should be exalted. This is sufficient to let us know where to look for antichrists in our own day — not in the atheistical lecture hall, but in the Christian university and pulpit. In like manner, when the last great deceiver is manifested his connection will not be so much with paganism, as with Judaism, and apostate Christianity.

The old Protestant idea (held tenaciously still by many) was that the Bishop of Rome is the Antichrist. This will not bear the test of Scripture; for two reasons: (1) the Antichrist is an individual, not a succession of men, nor a religious system; (2) the Romish Harlot is rather the woman of sin than "the man of sin" (compare 2 Thess. 2:3; Rev. 17:1-6).

113 John 5:43. — "Another." Bousset has rightly taken this of Antichrist, not of Bar Kochba (A.D. 132), as Pfleiderer, followed by Schmiedel (col. 2,551). The absurdity, again, of applying these words to the Popedom is clear from several New Testament passages, commencing with 2 Thess. 2. The Popes have never come in their own name, but in that of Peter; they own the Father and the Son (1 John 2:18-23), and Jesus Christ coming in the flesh (1 John 4:2). Bousset, in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (vol. i., col. 177), following his work on Antichrist, takes 2 Thess. 2:1-12 as his starting-point, he sees that the Antichrist must be a Jew, and that any "preterist or historical interpretation is out of the question" (col. 181). Swete, in like manner, thinks that the "second beast" of Rev. 13 is in some sense Antichrist ("Commentary on Apocalypse," ad loc.).