Jesus and the Antichrist Myth

[John Reece]

Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision extended all the way to (a) the Final Judgment by the Son of Man (Matthew 25:31-46) and (b) the end of the age (Matthew 28:16-20).

Why, then, did Jesus not envision any yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

Please stay on topic, which is Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision as presented by his biographers in the four Gospels vis-à-vis the Antichrist myth.

[John Reece]

[Sparko]

some people would say that he does in Matthew 24.

and although Jesus didn't mention the "man of lawlessness" - Paul mentions him so I don't think the argument can be made that unless Jesus specifically mentions something that we should ignore it as a prophesy.

[John Reece]

some people would say that he does in Matthew 24.

and although Jesus didn't mention the "man of lawlessness" - Paul mentions him so I don't think the argument can be made that unless Jesus specifically mentions something that we should ignore it as a prophesy.

The presuppositional arguments that originate from the Antichrist myth are too numerous and multifaceted to deal with in a single thread, so:

Please note that, in the OP, I requested that this thread be limited to Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision as presented by his biographers in the four Gospels vis-à-vis the Antichrist myth.

Also, please note the specifics of the question posed in the OP: Why, then, did Jesus not envision any yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

So, please be specific: which verses in Matthew 24 do "some people" say refer to a yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

[Sparko]

The presuppositional arguments that originate from the Antichrist myth are too numerous and multifaceted to deal with in a single thread, so:

Please note that, in the OP, I requested that this thread be limited to Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision as presented by his biographers in the four Gospels vis-à-vis the Antichrist myth.

Also, please note the specifics of the question posed in the OP: Why, then, did Jesus not envision any yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

So, please be specific: which verses in Matthew 24 do "some people" say refer to a yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

well the whole chapter actually, but if you want me to narrow it down...

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

And I don't think you CAN just take what Jesus says in isolation. Paul talking about the man of lawlessness is also talking about the end times and has to fit in with what Jesus said, since the bible doesn't contradict itself.

But I would ask, why are you speaking specifically about what Jesus said? Are you claiming if Jesus didn't mention something then we should ignore any other books in the bible that mention it?

Paul speaks about the man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple and proclaiming himself God. Jesus speaks in Matthew 24 of “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." which seems to be speaking about the same thing.

[John Reece]

But I would ask, why are you speaking specifically about what Jesus said?

Because I was interested in searching out the distinctions between what Jesus actually said (on the one hand) and presuppositions rooted in the Antichrist myth (on the other hand).

Are you claiming if Jesus didn't mention something then we should ignore any other books in the bible that mention it?

Of course not: I am not claiming anything at all; rather, I was only interesting in objectively searching out the differences between what the biblical texts actually say (on the one hand) and presuppositions originating from the Antichrist myth that are read into the biblical texts (on the other hand).

I can see now that this is not going to work out as I naively thought, so I'll just drop it.

[Sparko]

Because I was interested in searching out the distinctions between what Jesus actually said (on the one hand) and presuppositions rooted in the Antichrist myth (on the other hand).



Of course not: I am not claiming anything at all; rather, I was only interesting in objectively searching out the differences between what the biblical texts actually say (on the one hand) and presuppositions originating from the Antichrist myth that are read into the biblical texts (on the other hand).

I can see now that this is not going to work out as I naively thought, so I'll just drop it.

ah, ok.

well Jesus mentions many false messiahs and prophets. The antichrist "myth" speaks of only one. Jesus doesn't say anything clearly about any one person ruling the world, but it could be implied that is what he was talking about when he mentions the abomination.

[apostoli]

Hi John,

Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision extended all the way to (a) the Final Judgment by the Son of Man (Matthew 25:31-46) and (b) the end of the age (Matthew 28:16-20).

Why, then, did Jesus not envision any yet-to-be-revealed "Antichrist" appearing and ruling the nations of the world prior to the end of the age and the Final Judgment?

Please stay on topic, which is Jesus' teaching and prophetic vision as presented by his biographers in the four Gospels vis-à-vis the Antichrist myth.

I had to have a think about your concerns. The first thought I had turned out to be in agreement with Sparko's comments, though on second thought it struck me that at Mt 24:5,9-13 Jesus spoke in the plural, rather than pointing to an individual.

Putting everything in a historical context, I perceive that the warning Jesus gave was about organised religion (consider John 4:19-23) albeit at Mt 24 I perceive Jesus was refering directly to the destruction of Jerusalem...

But that said, it occured to me that Jesus was using an historical example that would be repeated (Mt 24:15). For instance: Antiochus IV descecration of the temple and the Maccabean Revolt...that is: Antiochus' partnering with the Hellenised Jews and outlawing religious Judaism...so I'm guessing, if we follow the circle we have a warning about an individual that leads many to advocate against Christ...just as the Temple cult did in the time of Annas' rulership (Jn 18:13,24; Acts 4:6).

Imo, historically we always find an individual leading the fray...

[xcav8tor]

But I would ask, why are you speaking specifically about what Jesus said?

Because I was interested in searching out the distinctions between what Jesus actually said (on the one hand) and presuppositions rooted in the Antichrist myth (on the other hand)...

Of course not: I am not claiming anything at all; rather, I was only interesting in objectively searching out the differences between what the biblical texts actually say (on the one hand) and presuppositions originating from the Antichrist myth that are read into the biblical texts (on the other hand).

Hi John,

From the statements above you would appear to be labouring under some presuppositions of your own - a Preterist bias which is antagonistic towards the Futurist understanding of the related texts. The title of this thread itself does not suggest objectivity, but a foregone conclusion.

That said, you do bring up a valid question, as to why Jesus did not directly and unmistakably detail the career of the Antichrist. By limiting the discussion to Christ's prophetic statements in the Gospels, you admittedly do not leave Futurists much to work with.

Of course, "why" questions are the most difficult to answer, especially when it comes to why God Himself chooses to act or not act, or to reveal or withhold something which if of interest to us. We tend to think that if such and such were the case, then God would act or reveal things in a manner agreeable to our point of view. Unfortunately, in the absence of applicable scripture, we are only left to speculate as to His reasons one way or the other, and none of our conclusions ultimately hold any weight. Nevertheless, since you asked, I will take a stab at it.

The most direct allusion Jesus seems to make of the Antichrist would seem to be His statement, ""I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him." (John 5:43) The problem here, of course, is that while this fits in very nicely with the Futurist perspective of the Jews' initial acceptance of the Antichrist's help (the deal made between the "coming prince" and "the many" of Dan. 9:27), Jesus is not specifically talking about the end times in this passage.

In Matthew 24 Jesus is definitely talking about future events and His Second Coming, and does draw attention to the prophecy of Daniel 9. Note the SEQUENTIAL TIMING CLUES:

15 "Therefore WHEN YOU SEE THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand ), 16 THEN those who are in Judea MUST FLEE to the mountains. 17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days ! 20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 "FOR THEN there will be a GREAT TRIBULATION, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved ; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. 29 "But IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 "And THEN THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, AND THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31 "AND HE WILL SEND FORTH HIS HIS ANGELS with A GREAT TRUMPET AND THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER HIS ELECT from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

This makes the following order clear: First, the ABOMINATION stands in the Holy Place (of the Temple). This starts a GREAT TRIBULATION. Immediately AFTER this Tribulation, they will SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING. Next, He will SEND HIS ANGELS to gather His elect (in context, the Jewish people, because the mystery of the church has not yet been revealed).

Now depending on how one interprets Daniel's "Prophecy of the 70 Weeks" determines whether or not Jesus is making an indirect reference to the Antichrist. Futurists (generally) believe that the "Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the Prophet" of verse 15 is committed by this One World Ruler, and is described by Paul as the "Man of Lawlessness" who sits himself in a future rebuilt Jewish temple and proclaims himself to be God. If this is a proper understanding of these related texts, then Jesus is here indirectly acknowledging the existence of the person Futurists call the Antichrist. Of course, without considering Daniel (the source of Jesus' crucial reference which starts the ball rolling) or the key details Paul added later, the Futurist's hands are tied. The limited parameters make it a no-win situation. It doesn't, of course, either disprove the Futurist perspective, or validate the Preterist view.

Still, we are left to ponder why Jesus was not more forthright about the Antichrist's primary roll in future events. Two possibilities come to mind.

ONE. The lack of need to re-invent the wheel. Daniel had described in chapters 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 the characteristics, background and actions of this evil world dictator, so there was no requirement for Jesus to repeat what was already revealed through Daniel. There were a lot of things that Moses wrote about that Jesus didn't bother reintroducing either.

TWO. It was left for Paul and John to fill in the remaining detail, just as Jesus did not heal the lame man who Peter healed in Acts 3. We are told in verse 2 that he was "a man who had been lame from his mother's womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple." Surely over the 3 1/2 years of Jesus' ministry, He must have been aware of this man's plight, yet He never intervened. Evidently, it was so that He would be glorified later when Peter healed the man in Jesus' name. It was a matter of God's timing.

In like manner, it would seem that Jesus had planned to continue the revelation of future events through His servants Paul and John. Paul wrote most of the NT and was uniquely the Apostle to the Gentiles and key to the early growth of the church. John, the beloved apostle, was granted the most in-depth visions of the events leading up to Christ's return, and it is here in particular where we find the most detail about the Antichrist (his rise to power, his partner in crime, his temporary alliance with a one-world religion, his murder of the two witnesses, his betrayal and persecution of the Jews, his gathering of the world's armies to Armageddon, his confrontation of Christ at His return, and his ultimate demise and eternal destiny). In hindsight, it would have seemed out of place had Jesus laid all this out during His ministry. That was not the purpose of His coming.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[John Reece]

From the statements above you would appear to be labouring under some presuppositions of your own - a Preterist bias which is antagonistic towards the Futurist understanding of the related texts. The title of this thread itself does not suggest objectivity, but a foregone conclusion.

Back in the 1980's, when my mind was still fully loaded with futurist presuppositions, I spent quite a bit of time seeking God for grace to disabuse my mind of all presuppositions ― my own as well as those of others ― while simultaneously marinating my mind in the Greek text of the Olivet Discourse, repeatedly reading it over and over again.

As what the text actually says gradually displaced what I thought it meant, it became crystal clear to me how thoroughly localized it was in terms of time and place. I came to see it in a way that only R. T. France ― to whose doctrinal thesis and first book (Jesus and the Old Testament) premillennialist D. A. Carson (in a personal letter) referred me at a later time in the 1980's ― has presented in the form of meticulously thorough exegesis of the Greek text (in his NICNT commentary on Matthew and his NIGTC commentary on Mark).

So it's not that I approach the text with a preterist bias; rather, it's that ― by the grace of God and a completely objective immersion of my mind in the Greek text of the Olivet discourse ― my mind has been liberated from presuppositions that project into the future (as of the 21st century) what Jesus clearly time-limited to the lifetime of his contemporaries. France's book (Jesus and the Old Testament) and commentaries (including in addition to those listed above his TNTC commentary on Matthew) confirm by means of superbly competent scholarly exegesis what I came to see by means of personal prayer and study of the Greek text.

Edited to add: Last night I woke up remembering something the academic dean of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia in the 1960's taught me in a class on the Greek text of Philippians. I don't fully recall all the details, but the point he pressed home to me was the value of learning to listen to what a particular text says without importing and projecting into that text everything I thought I knew from other texts in other contexts. Your comment above is reminiscent of the lesson Dr. Kelly taught me; likewise the full template of the Antichrist legend.

[xcav8tor]

Hi John,

Back in the '80s, when your mind was full of "futurist presuppositions," what was it that made you aware that you were harbouring them in the first place?

It appears you were clearly influenced by R.T. France's writings, and exchanged one set of presuppositions for another. You boast that your mind has been "liberated from presuppositions that project into the future," without recognizing that you have perhaps gone from one extreme to the other. You need to realize that Futurists as well as Preterists have reached their conclusions regarding prophecy through sincere personal prayer and thoughtful study and that there are well educated proponents on both sides of the issue.

As I said earlier, the very title you chose for this thread belies any objectivity on the subject. You have clearly made up your mind on the issue - which consequently makes you biased. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion (which I grant you has not been an easy journey), as are Futurists who have reached an opposite conclusion to yours. I do not question your sincerity, your integrity or your faith in Christ - just your Preterist verdict.

Regarding the point the dean made of, "the value of learning to listen to what a particular text says without importing and projecting into that text everything I thought I knew from other texts in other contexts," I agree in part. While each text should (and must) be studied in isolation and on its own merits to see what truth is revealed within the immediate context, prophetic passages must also be seen within the scope of the Bible as a whole, along with other information the Bible provides about a particular topic in related passages in order to get the complete picture. In my opinion it is a mistake to study ONLY the big picture OR the immediate context in isolation - we need the information gleaned from BOTH approaches combined in order to have balanced perspective. Like a puzzle, each individual piece provides it's own unique clue and contribution to the completed picture, but the piece alone is insufficient. One piece standing alone lacks the full context and therefore cannot do justice to the whole, but when the puzzle is complete, each individual piece is better appreciated.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[John Reece]

You need to realize that Futurists as well as Preterists have reached their conclusions regarding prophecy through sincere personal prayer and thoughtful study and that there are well educated proponents on both sides of the issue.

That's so obvious it amounts to a truism.

"Sincere personal prayer and thoughtful study" says nothing about unconscious, unexamined, and unpurged presuppositions.

[John Reece]

Jesus doesn't say anything clearly about any one person ruling the world, but it could be implied that is what he was talking about when he mentions the abomination.

Matthew 24:15-19

‘So when you see “the abomination of desolation”, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judaea must take to the hills. 17 If anyone is on the roof, he must not go down to fetch his goods from the house; 18 if anyone is in the field, he must not turn back for his coat. 19 Alas for women with child in those days, and for those who have children at the breast!

Without projecting into the text suppositions originating from the legend of "the Antichrist", explain how what Jesus said implies that he was envisaging the Antichrist as a ruler of the world.

[Bill the Cat]

John,

Where do you think the antichrist "myth" originated?

[John Reece]

John,

Where do you think the antichrist "myth" originated?

According to Wilhelm Bousset in The Antichrist Legend (published in Germany in 1895) the Christian expectation was adapted from an existing Jewish conception; i.e., Jewish apocalyptics.