Jesus and the Antichrist Myth

[Pilgrim]

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.

Only if you start with the Anti Christ myth as an apriori.

[Darfius]

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.

The obvious follow up is where you think the Jewish conception originated. Jews and Christians share many beliefs that also happen to be true.

Someone else has already pointed out Christ's mention of "false Messiahs" (who would essentially be antichrists), but I really must object to the presupposition in your OP that Christ does not speak through His prophets when Scripture clearly contradicts that:

1 Peter 1:10-11

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow.

So this false dichotomy between "what Christ really said" in the Gospels and other portions of Scripture cannot be allowed to stand.

But since your presupposition likely will not allow you to admit that, I will try and reach you on another level.

Can you tell me where in the Gospels Christ claims that the destruction of Jerusalem will coincide with the entering into His kingship? Was He not born a king?

John 18:37

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Otherwise I must assume that your King-In-Waiting Myth is textually untenable.

[xcav8tor]

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

And what are your current presuppositions John? - and don't tell me you don't have any. We all do. In fact, some presuppositions are necessary and are good ones to have (because they are scripturally based).

You tell me yours and I'll tell you mine.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[John Reece]

Within the parameters of the discussion specified in the OP, Sparko has helpfully brought us to the term in the Gospels that is supposed to imply a reference to the yet-to-be-revealed-ruler-of-the-world Antichrist: "the abomination".

Matthew 24:15-19 (REB)

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!

Readers of English versions that render the phrase βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως "the abomination" and the participle ἑστός "standing" may mistake verse 15 to be a reference to a person.

However, a more accurate rendering of Matthew 24:15 is provided by R. T. France in his NICNT commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007):

So when you see the devastating pollution* which Daniel the prophet spoke about set up** in the holy place (let the reader understand this).

*This phrase represents τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, the LXX and Theodotion rendering of the phrase used in Dan 11:31; 12:11; (cf Dan 9:27; 8:13), which combines the ideas of disgust or pollution (a concept associated with idolatry) and of destruction or leaving deserted (the same root as for ἔρημος, "deserted," in 23:38).
**Literally, "standing," but the participle is neuter (in agreement with βδέλυγμα), which indicates an (idolatrous)) object "set up" rather than a person "standing."

[John Reece]

From page 911 of The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), by R. T. France, this is the first of four paragraphs of commentary on Matthew 24:15:

The most obvious sign that "the end" is near in Jerusalem is cryptically described in familiar scriptural language. The "devastating pollution"¹ is explicitly identified as a motif from Daniel, though the phrase is sufficiently distinctive to be recognized even without explicit attribution, as Mark clearly believed. In Daniel the phrase stands for the horrifying sacrilege which was to be perpetrated by the "king of the north" when he abolished the regular sacrificial ritual of the Jerusalem temple (Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The reference is clearly to the events of 167 B.C., when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered Jerusalem and prohibited Jewish sacrificial worship, setting up an alter for pagan sacrifices (including the slaughter of pigs) on top of the alter of burnt offering (Josephus, Ant. 12.253); it stood in the temple for three years until Judas Maccabeus regained control of Jerusalem, purified the temple, and restored true worship. 1 Macc 1:54 describes this pagan alter by the same phrase bdelygma erēmōseōs;² for the reconsecration of the temple see 1 Macc 4:41-58.

¹This phrase represents τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, the LXX and Thdt rendering of the phrase used in Dan 11:31; 12:11 (cf Dan 9:27; 8:13), which combines the ideas of disgust or pollution (a concept associated with idolatry) and of destruction or leaving deserted (the same root as for ἔρημος in 23:38.)
²Josephus, Ant. 12.320, also uses the cognate verb ἐρημόω to describe the effect of Antiochus's actions in the temple.

[Bill the Cat]

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.

And I would strongly agree with that. And, Jesus being a Jew speaking to Jews would naturally not find it necessary to extrapolate on something they would have already knew.

[John Reece]

And I would strongly agree with that. And, Jesus being a Jew speaking to Jews would naturally not find it necessary to extrapolate on something they would have already knew.

There is no record indicating that the term "antichrist" originated from Jewish apocalyptics; rather, the appellation used by the Jews was Belial or Beliar ― NB: these two links, to a single verse in the OT and a single verse in the NT, exhaust the biblical usage of the appellation.

It was only later ― not in any biblical scripture ― that Christians associated the term 'Antichrist' with extra-biblical Jewish conceptions of 'Belial/Beliar'.

The legend/myth of the Antichrist does not consist of a single coherent form; rather, it consists of a mishmash/hodgepodge of quasi-prophecies that accumulated in extra-biblical and post-biblical non-canonical writings.

Later in this thread I intend to present excerpts from Bousset's The Legend of the Antichrist to illustrate the differing conceptions of the mythological being eventually construed to be 'the Antichrist'.

[xcav8tor]

Within the parameters of the discussion specified in the OP, Sparko has helpfully brought us to the term in the Gospels that is supposed to imply a reference to the yet-to-be-revealed-ruler-of-the-world Antichrist: "the abomination".

Matthew 24:15-19 (REB)

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...

Readers of English versions that render the phrase βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως "the abomination" and the participle ἑστός "standing" may mistake verse 15 to be a reference to a person.

However, a more accurate rendering of Matthew 24:15 is provided by R. T. France in his NICNT commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007):

So when you see the devastating pollution* which Daniel the prophet spoke about set up** in the holy place (let the reader understand this)... Literally, "standing," but the participle is neuter (in agreement with βδέλυγμα), which indicates an (idolatrous)) object "set up" rather than a person "standing."

Hi John,

I think you are missing the point. The Antichrist himself doesn't have to be the "abomination" "standing" in the temple.

After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. " (Dan. 9:26, 27 NIV)

The idea that Sparko was trying to get across - as I understand it - is that since the "the devastating pollution" that is "set up" in the temple (even using France's translation) is put in place by the Antichrist himself, Jesus' reference to his actions in Matthew 24:15 infers Christ's recognition of the person of the Antichrist - and his personal existence between the start of the "great tribulation" and Christ's "coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" at the end of it (as per verse 29) when, according to the apostle John, he "saw the beast [the Antichrist] and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse [Christ] and his army." (Rev. 19:19 NIV)

Regards,
xcav8tor

[xcav8tor]

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.

Only if you start with the Anti Christ myth as an apriori.

Hi Pilgrim,

And I suppose that in your opinion it is not possible for one to instead start with the prophecies of Daniel which describe an end-times world leader, and then conclude that Jesus' reference to the abomination set up by the coming prince implies the existence of that coming prince.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Bill the Cat]

There is no record indicating that the term "antichrist" originated from Jewish apocalyptics; rather, the appellation used by the Jews was Belial or Beliar ― NB: these two links, to a single verse in the OT and a single verse in the NT, exhaust the biblical usage of the appellation.

It was only later ― not in any biblical scripture ― that Christians associated the term 'Antichrist' with extra-biblical Jewish conceptions of 'Belial/Beliar'.

The legend/myth of the Antichrist does not consist of a single coherent form; rather, it consists of a mishmash/hodgepodge of quasi-prophecies that accumulated in extra-biblical and post-biblical non-canonical writings.

Later in this thread I intend to present excerpts from Bousset's The Legend of the Antichrist to illustrate the differing conceptions of the mythological being eventually construed to be 'the Antichrist'.

You are familiar with the Didache's expectation of the "world deceiver", correct?

[John Reece]

You are familiar with the Didache's expectation of the "world deceiver", correct?

Yes.

Edited to add:

I have not been able to reconcile the fact that the community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father as entirely a future event" (quoting a scholar of the Didache) with Jesus' teaching about the kingdom in the Gospels.

[John Reece]

I think you are missing the point. The Antichrist himself doesn't have to be the "abomination" "standing" in the temple.

After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. " (Dan. 9:26, 27 NIV)

The idea that Sparko was trying to get across - as I understand it - is that since the "the devastating pollution" that is "set up" in the temple (even using France's translation) is put in place by the Antichrist himself, Jesus' reference to his actions in Matthew 24:15 infers Christ's recognition of the person of the Antichrist - and his personal existence between the start of the "great tribulation" and Christ's "coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory" at the end of it (as per verse 29) when, according to the apostle John, he "saw the beast [the Antichrist] and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse [Christ] and his army." (Rev. 19:19 NIV)

I understand that is the traditional interpretation that is the majority view; however, I am not convinced that it is necessarily so, as there are too many questionable (to my mind) suppositions involved in it.

Perhaps it is exactly as you say; however, I have to search it all out for myself.

I have not been able to reconcile traditional futurist eschatology with the teleological perspective I see in Jesus' teaching about the kingdom in the Gospels, and the teleology I see clearly laid out in Paul's epistle to the Ephesians.

The teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and Paul in Ephesians are plainly stated in clear unambiguous prose that resonates as powerfully in my spirit as in my mind; on the other hand, traditional futurist eschatology is based in texts that ― especially in the original languages ― are cryptic, enigmatic, obscure, and uncertain to a degree that is masked by English versions thereof.

Maybe I will at last come to agree with you; but not unless and until I see it for myself after a thorough and meticulous exegesis of all the related texts.

[Pilgrim]

Hi Pilgrim,

And I suppose that in your opinion it is not possible for one to instead start with the prophecies of Daniel which describe an end-times world leader, and then conclude that Jesus' reference to the abomination set up by the coming prince implies the existence of that coming prince.

Regards,
xcav8tor

Show me in Daniel the term "Anti Christ" defined. waiting...waiting....no, didn't think so.

[Bill the Cat]

Yes.

Edited to add:

I have not been able to reconcile the fact that the community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father as entirely a future event" (quoting a scholar of the Didache) with Jesus' teaching about the kingdom in the Gospels.

Well, the Didache is pretty clear evidence that the very early believers, at least some of them, had an expectation of a single world deceiver who would do the things Jesus said in Matt 24. And, as one debater said on this site... the oral belief had to exist beofore the written doctrine.

[apostoli]

This phrase represents τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, the LXX and Thdt rendering of the phrase used in Dan 11:31; 12:11 (cf Dan 9:27; 8:13), which combines the ideas of disgust or pollution (a concept associated with idolatry) and of destruction or leaving deserted (the same root as for ἔρημος in 23:38.)

All the commentaries I consulted attribute the phrase as refering to the Roman army (cp. Lk 21:20). According to Gill: '...the Roman army...was the, "the wing", or "army of abominations making desolate", Daniel 9:27. Armies are called wings, Isaiah 8:8 and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews...'
http://bible.cc/matthew/24-15.htm

After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. " (Dan. 9:26, 27 NIV)

Daniel 9:21-27 I see as post construction of the second temple as vs26-27 tells us that "the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". This prince I take as being Titus, and the "people of the prince", his armies, for "there shall be war". Though I'm a futurist, I can't perceive how Dan 9:21-27 can be projected beyond 70CE. Especially as in the NT there is no mention of a third temple being constructed or the need for one. Imu, the temple became redundant for the purpose of true worship, especially given there is no need for the temple sacrifices since Jesus' sacrifice.

The idea that Sparko was trying to get across - as I understand it - is that since the "the devastating pollution" that is "set up" in the temple (even using France's translation) is put in place by the Antichrist himself, Jesus' reference to his actions in Matthew 24:15 infers Christ's recognition of the person of the Antichrist...

Luke 21:20-22 which parallels Mt 24:15-16 & Mk 13:14 would seem to contradict your understanding that Jesus was refering to a person at Mt 24:15. Luke says "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains..." (ESV)