It was 40 degrees celsius and the bell had just rung for lunch on a Friday at a school where I was once Chaplain. One of my colleagues strode from teaching Year 9 English into the staff room and threw her books down on the table. ‘I don’t want to be melodramatic’ she said ‘but I’ve given it a lot of thought. And I’m pretty sure Liam Fitzgerald in Year Nine is the Antichrist’
Now, obviously, I’ve changed the student’s name. But we all knew Liam. There was a momentary silence, and then we all nodded sagely. Yes, we agreed tacitly, Liam Fitzgerald probably was the Antichrist. Although, if we’re honest, that title could go to a wide range of Year Nine boys.
It was interesting to me that we all had a vague understanding that the Antichrist was sort of a bad character, who was evil and malignant. Everyone knew what the English teacher meant – but I guarantee nobody in the room was acquainted with the first and second letters of John, which are the only places that the term ‘antichrist’ appears in the scriptures.
I suspect it was Stephen King who really popularised the concept of The Antichrist as a character – there’s a bloke called Randall Flagg who is (not a Year Nine boy but) a sorcerer who appears in nine of King’s books and whose main activity is the destruction of whole civilisations.
During the Easter season I will be preaching a sermon series on the First Letter of John, because we’ll end up reading big chunks of it throughout the season. I’d really encourage you to put aside some time to read the whole thing. It is not very long – it’s five short chapters, and it appears right at the back of your bible. You can also read it online or you might even be enthusiastic enough to download the audio book. When we read things in the liturgy, we read sections or pericopes because otherwise we would be here all day. But the letter is a single text and it merits being read as a single text.
And, if we’re going to get our heads around this text, we need to get our heads around the idea of antichrist, and also diablo – the devil.
In both cases, we transliterate rather than translate the words from Greek. So when we read antichrist in English, the word is antichristos in Greek. When we read devil in English, the word is diabolo in Greek – the word devil is just how the word has evolved from English to Greek. It’s like the word croissant – we don’t translate it into boomerang pastry. We just use the French word (but mispronounce it because we’re Aussies).
So we don’t really have modern equivalents for these terms, antichrist and devil. We just use the same words that the author of 1 John uses. So what do we think those words meant or signified in their late first century context?
As far as anyone can tell, there was a group of churches. Probably located around modern-day Syria. The time was the late first century, probably after the Temple had been destroyed. There was someone who was a sort of leader or overseer of these churches. She or he referred to themselves as ho presbytero, The Elder. The Elder wrote these sort-of letters which were like study guides, that were distributed amongst this network of churches. The churches probably had copies of the gospel that we call John, and possibly some other texts. The text that we call 3 John (which is very short) suggests that there was some conflict because guests from the other churches in the network were not being welcomed and looked after. Diotrephes, writes The Elder, likes to put himself first but when The Elder comes to visit, they are going to draw attention to Diotrephes bad behaviour. (I love the passive-aggressive threat!). But in 1 John, we see that there’s another source of tension in at least one of the churches.
Splitters.
A group of people has split themselves off from the church, and are denying that Jesus is truly God. Their leader is anti-christos, opposed to the Messiah. The Elder is pretty stroppy about all this, and makes it clear that these anti-christoses are a big problem.
The Elder contrasts the way of the believers, with the ways of tou kosmou, the world. And here we see the inherent tension of the Christian faith. Because, in the worldview of the early church, God made the world, God loved the world, God sent Jesus into the world – but until Jesus returns, the world is under the power of diabolou – the bad guy, the enemy, the evil one, the deceiver. The Devil.
So let’s be clear, the antichrist is the false teacher who leads people away from the church with lies about Jesus’ divine nature, but the devil is the one who has current custody of the world, and who causes it to be a dangerous, unjust and cruel place.
But before The Elder gets into the weeds, dealing with antichrists and the devil, they situate their readers in the key, fundamental truth of the Christian faith. They make it clear that through revelation, that is, through direct experience, they know and the church believes that Jesus is God.
Now then, just as today, there were those who said that Jesus was an inspirational teacher, and a model or example that we should emulate. Which of course he was. There were those who said that Jesus brought a message from God, and that the message should be heeded – which of course he did and it should. There were those who said that Jesus had particular access to God, and was uniquely placed to communicate with God and about God – all of which is true. But the central truth claim of Christianity is that Jesus is God.
The late first century church didn’t yet have a fully developed language to talk about the Trinity – God in three persons. But in their rhetoric, prayer, worship and behaviour – they affirmed the divine nature of Christ and the divine presence of the Holy Spirit. They didn’t have fully developed language to talk about the gastric system either – but they lived the reality that when you eat food, you are nourished, and the body expels the waste. They lived the reality of God who is one substance in three persons, even if they didn’t yet have the sophisticated language of later centuries.
So, who, then is the antichrist, or, more correctly, an antichrist? Honestly, the jury is still out on Liam Fitzgerald. But it probably isn’t Bill Gates or Pope Benedict or Vladimir Putin. To be antichristos, opposed to Jesus as anointed one, is probably much more insidious and less obvious.
I think we can all be antichrist at different times and seasons.
When we privatise faith, and make it about our own emotional needs rather than the good of the whole world, we can be antichrist. When we use Jesus to endorse our existing opinions and prejudices, rather than inviting him to transform us, we can be antichrist. We can even be antichrist when we think we are doing enormous good, scurrying around doing good deeds, fighting all the good fights, but not acknowledging that it’s God who redeems the world, not us.
The good news is, that a lot of the time we are not antichrist, we are pro-Christ. When we let go of our own pride and ego, when we’re honest about our flaws and failings, when we choose to follow and be led by Jesus, instead of demanding that he conform to our desires. A lot of the time, despite enormous pressure to do otherwise, we step back and let Jesus work, and miracles happen.
If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Christ is Risen, Alleluia, Alleluia!