The Apostles of Antichrist

In the gospel of Matthew, it is recorded that some (if not all) of the apostles were antichrists. Prima facie, the passage in question may seem innocuous enough (especially in the eyes of the minds blinded by the darkness of seminarian light), though in light of the things John writes in his first epistle concerning the identification of antichrists, the innocuous quickly becomes indictment.

In his final visit to Sodom (Revelation 11:8) before his crucifixion, Jesus went to the temple which-- though rebuilt twice since Solomon's death-- has always been known to the Jews as 'Solomon's temple;' not as God's temple; not as Cyrus' temple; not as Herod's temple. To this day, the eschatologists of Christendom still refer to it by the same title: Solomon's temple; and this in future tense.

At any rate, as he left the temple, his disciples came to him, imploring his admiration of Herod's reconstruction of the temple, which was ongoing. Jesus' response to their awe was, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2) He then retired to the mount of Olives "over against the temple," (Mark 13:3a) where his disciples came to him.

Many of the finer details in the gospels, while being mentioned in multiple gospels, disagree in their particulars from one gospel to another. So it is with this encounter and resultant exchange between Christ and the disciples on the mount of Olives, following the visit to the temple.

Mark says, "Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" (Mark 13:3b - 4)

Luke says, "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?" (Luke 21:7)

Matthew says, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:3)

Now, in harmonizing these three accounts, we find the following: 1) In his account, Luke doesn't particularly mention the disciples or the mount of Olives: instead referring to the decidedly more vague "some" and "they;" and leaving the reader to infer the entire exchange took place at the temple. 2) Mark is the only one who puts names to Christ's interrogators. 3) Matthew is the only one who asserts one of the questions posed regards the "coming" of the one so interrogated. 4) The one thing they all agree upon is that those asking the questions seek a sign.

While the first three bullet- points serve as indictments of the apostles' recall and subsequent recounts, the final bullet- point serves as an indictment inasmuch as they all agree on it. This bullet- point indicates the heart condition of the ones interrogating Christ was of a markedly untoward nature inasmuch as Christ said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." (Matthew 12:39) Bullet- point 3) indicts the interrogators as antichrists.

The apostle John, in his first epistle general, writes, "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 it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." And, "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ( 1 John 2:18 & 19 and 4:3)

Perhaps John wrote the foregoing in regard to our relationship with the world. After all, as Saint Augustine said, "we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself;" ('Catechism of the Catholic Church' c.a. 1994, paragraph 795) and Christ himself said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me;" (Matthew 25:40) but how much more binding a condemnation is this passage from 1 John when applied to those in attendance upon the principal Christ? They were looking at him and talking to him in person, having born witness to his entire ministry: and denying his coming, though he was right there in front of them. They denied him to his face, and Mark says in particular that Peter was one of them.

Preachers and seminarians like to make infallible Gods of the apostles, but in light of the above citations, how realistic is it for them to so do? If there's nothing fishy about the apostles, why did the apostle Paul write to the Corinthians, saying, "such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13 - 15)?

Understand: I don't write these things to discourage reading, study, and research of the scriptures. On the contrary: it is my goal to encourage, as vehemently as possible, this most profitable exercise. But, especially when you eat the scriptures: don't forget the salt. "And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt." (Leviticus 2:13) And remember to savor the meat. As Christ said, "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?" (Luke 14:34)