The Antichrist theme received significant attention from the time of the early church, as demonstrated in the writings of the church fathers. Multiple strands of interpretation developed in Christendom within 400 years of the resurrection of Jesus, and these varying positions would serve as the foundation for nearly all future interpretation of Revelation 13. Medieval theologians and, later, the leaders of the Reformation would add significant elements to the Antichrist legend. However, the basic characteristics of the Beast and his Mark largely remain unchanged from these first pioneering exegetes.
Around the time of the Nicene Council, one unique innovation was introduced. The Antichrist began to be equated with well-known heresiarchs like Arius and his followers. Tertullian pioneered such characterizations with his earlier polemic against Marcion, but this position matured in the aftermath of Nicaea. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) stated that the Sabellians and Arians were part of the great apostasy that Paul foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2. He called them forerunners of the Antichrist. Likewise, Athanasius (d. 373) referred to Arians as those preceding Antichrist. Following these examples, John of Damascus (d. 749) used the term a few centuries later against the Nestorians, Monophysites, and Muslims. Seeing these examples, this paper seeks to answer the question: “Does the Nicene Fathers’ application of Antichrist language to their religious enemies reveal a faithful reading of John’s Apocalypse in defense of Christological orthodoxy?”