(Text Only)
Title: Antichrist or Antichrists?
Today we return to I John after an absence of a few weeks, and we have a very interesting passage to look at. At first read, it may seem troubling or confusing, but we will see it through this morning thoroughly, and come to a place, I hope, where we clearly understand what John is telling us in this passage.
In order to arrive there, I’d like to break this passage down in to three distinct teachable sections, and tackle each one individually. As we work through these verses one question at a time, I think we will arrive at a place of comprehension, and application.
(Read/pray)
I. What is “The Last Hour”
Many Christians throughout history have needlessly struggled with the language that John uses here, and many other Biblical authors use elsewhere to call their time, “The Last Hour.” I wish I could offer you some brilliant theological and academic insight to unravel the mystery of what “The Last Hour” refers to, but really, it’s all in context.
The Last Hour means the time between Christ first and second coming.
Paul makes a similar statement in I Cor. 10:13 when he writes, “…the ends of the ages have come”
And then Luke records Peter’s prophecy in Acts 2:17 and records Peter saying, “And it shall come to pass in the last days…”
Application: There are exactly two things we should be able to take and apply to our lives right now, if we are not already doing so:
1. No one knows how long this “hour/age/day” is. (No one knows when Christ will return.)
2. The time in near. (The next big event in human history is not a hurricane, or a war, or an economic collapse, it is the return of Jesus Christ…yet we prepare much more for the former than he latter.)
II. Antichrist or antichrists?
The Word that is used in the Greek here is “Anti-Christos” which is simply defined as: “the adversary of the Messiah”
My translation reads “the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come”
And not all English translations read this way. Many read:
“antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come”
What’s the difference?
1. The definite article “The”
2. Capitalization
Well, what does this tell you? The people who translated my Bible, believe the first reference is to a specific person, singular, and with a definite article and capitalized as a proper noun.
But, let me also suggest that this is exactly what the second translation says as well.
Two translating schools:
1. Literary Accuracy
2. Meaning Accuracy
In this case, the first school want to remain as faithful to the original manuscripts as possible, and many of the original manuscripts omit “the” in front of antichrist, and don’t capitalize, this is totally acceptable.
The second school understands that the first reference is singular, referring to a specific antichrist, and the second reference is more general, referring to “those who would be Christ’s adversary” but to clear up the confusion, they include the definite article found in more recent manuscripts and then go even a step further and capitalize the “A” to show the reader the first reference is specific, the second is general.
Pastor Ben’s Position:
There is a definite “AntiChrist” referred to in Revelation, I believe this is the person of John’s warning. There are also several “Antichrists” throughout history that seek to pervert and disrupt the church, this is the second reference.
III. “They went out from us…”
John here gives a sobering reminder that often false teachers come from the membership of the Church, not the outside world. And their message is often well received by the world for that very reason.
They say to the world, “I’ve gone down that road, I was part of Christ’s church, and let me tell you what I’ve found, let me tell you everything that’s wrong with the Church!” It’s as if because they were members of the church at some point they are qualified to expose it. But the world eats this stuff up.
People are lazy, Americans are lazy. We won’t check a story, but we’ll empathize with someone else’s story, and then reiterate that story as if it’s fact.
J.I. Packer says this:
“…visible membership in the church does not guarantee salvation. Inward apathy or hostility to the gospel may be masked by outward conformity. The false teachers revealed their hostility not just by leaving, but by the way they left. Because they went out to oppose the word of the gospel, their departure was as much a renunciation of the church and its message as was Judas’ departure from the Last Supper.”
Fortunately for us, John gives us a clue as how we can qualify someone as legitimate. Anyone see the clue in the passage?
“If they had been of us, they would have continued with us.”
Application:
Christians need to earn the respect of their churches. There is no entitlement.
(Dr. Wyndham’s story… 10 years. “You need to get dirty with them.”)
(Story of the “Deacon” who came to HBC several years ago..others wanted to thrust him into leadership…I waited…truth was revealed…)
Pray.
QA