The Antichrist Legend

[John Reece]

Would it be fair to say that the Church stopped thinking eschatologically sometime before Victorinus, and if so, why ? The sheer variety of methods of interpretation of Rev is bewildering.

Good question.

At this point in time I would like to leave that question open, hopefully so as to hear opinions from others ― especially students of the Apostolic Fathers, whom I have never read; not because I disdain them so much as the fact that I have always been a slow reader with an inferior memory, so I have of necessity had to narrowly focus my reading so as to harvest something of long-term benefit from it.

I chose the biblical languages as the primary focus of my limited mental capacity.

My mother was an avid reader, but my father told me he never read books because he could not remember anything he read; I, as a book-obsessed teenager at the time, responded that I read for the joy of reading ― I immensely enjoyed the process; and my memory did not become as bad as my father said his was until I entered my 70's, and even more so my 80's.

I used to work for a director of a mental health center who read voluminously and used to trade books with me, as we both read a lot of books about similar subjects of mutual interest ― mostly history, and biographies of historically significant men and women. I remember especially sharing with him one such book: about the three world leaders whose joint efforts led to the fall of the USSR ― Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan. IIRC, the author was a Catholic by the name of Malachi (the final "i" pronounced "ee") Martin.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from prior posts↑

From Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982, [via Accordance]) ― the 6th of 7 parts (color emphasis added by JR):

6. Later developments

In the post-Constantinian age the form of the expectation of Antichrist was inevitably modified. He was envisaged as an enemy of the Christendom which now comprised both church and empire, but opinions continued to differ on whether he would arise from without or within. On the one hand he was envisaged as an external enemy, like Genseric the Vandal in the fifth century (whose name could be spelled in Greek so as to yield the total 666) or Muhammad in the seventh century. On the other hand he was envisaged as an apostate individual or group arising within Christendom. Such an individual was recognized by some in a pope, like John XII (955–963), or in a secular ruler, like Frederick Barbarossa (Holy Roman Emperor, 1155–90).

If an individual pope was identified with Antichrist, he was regarded as an unworthy occupant of a sacred office, a usurper “taking his seat in the sanctuary of God” (2 Thess 2:4). When Joachim of Fiore met Richard Coeur-de-Lion at Messina in the winter of 1190/91, he may have had such a development in mind when he told him that Antichrist “is already born in the city of Rome and will set himself yet higher in the see apostolic” (Reeves, Joachim, 136). But some of Joachim’s disciples, notably Gerard of Borgo San Donnino (in his introduction to a collection of Joachim’s works, published about 1254 under the title The Eternal Gospel), went farther and identified the Papacy itself with the Antichrist. This idea lived on in some circles throughout the later Middle Ages and was taken up by Luther, Calvin and other reformers in the sixteenth century. It attained confessional status in many churches of the Reformation; for example, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), “the Pope of Rome . . . is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God” (25:6). The first Reformed exegete to abandon the identification of the Papacy with Antichrist was Hugo Grotius (1644).

On the other side, the adherents of the old religion were not slow to recognize the features of Antichrist in Luther and his followers. Luther’s name could, with a modicum of ingenuity, be made to yield the sum of 666; he himself was identified by one exegete with the fallen star which is permitted in Rev 9:1, 2 to unlock the exit from the abyss, and another exegete identified the locusts which thereupon emerged from the abyss (Rev 9:3–11) with the Lutherans.

No identification of the mystery of lawlessness can be acceptable if it would not have been intelligible to the Christians to whom 2 Thessalonians was first addressed. Individuals or systems figuring in the subsequent course of Christian history cannot be considered when the primary application of the apostolic words is being decided. As for a possible further application, the best policy might be for everyone who studies the matter to ask the question which came to the lips of the disciples in the upper room when they were told that one of them was a traitor: “Lord, is it I?” The spirit of Antichrist will be strengthened if Christians allow themselves to be seduced by it and to foster it in their hearts; it will be diminished and weakened if they individually watch for every manifestation of it within themselves, cast it out and wage unceasing war against it, confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ not in word only but in deed and in truth.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from prior posts↑

From Excursus on Antichrist in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, by F. F. Bruce (WBC: Word, Inc., 1982, [via Accordance]) ― the 7th of 7 parts:

7. The restraining power

Unlike the man of lawlessness, the restraining power does not seem to figure in any NT writing outside 2 Thess 2:6, 7. There is indeed a figure in the Apocalypse who is in a position to exercise restraint in this situation: the “angel of the abyss” whose name is Apollyon (Rev 9:11) holds the key by which he can release the demonic locusts from the abyss and lock the dragon up there (Rev 20:1–3), so that he could presumably have hindered the seven-headed beast from coming up from the abyss (Rev 11:7), but he is not said to have done so.

Since the force being restrained is evil, the restrainer might be thought to be good. God himself is not the restrainer, for the restrainer is to “be taken out of the way” (2 Thess 2:7); yet the restrainer is identified with God by F. J. A. Hort (Life and Letters i, 213), Strobel (Untersuchungen, 98–116), Ernst (Gegenspieler, 55–57) and Aus (“God’s Plan,” 544–552: God’s plan is τὸ κατέχον, God is ultimately ὁ κατέχων and it is the man of lawlessness who is to ‘be taken out of the way“). At the other extreme the restrainer is identified with the devil by Giblin (Threat, 230, 234: the neuter τὸ κατέχον denotes” satanic activity“).

Among other identifications of the restraining power (apart from those referred to in the comments on 2:6, 7) may be mentioned Warfield’s view that it was the continuing existence of the (second) Jewish commonwealth;” so soon as the Jewish apostasy was complete and Jerusalem given over to the Gentiles . . . the separation of Christianity from Judaism, which had already begun, became evident to every eye; the conflict between the new faith and heathenism, culminating in and now alive almost only in the Emperor-worship, became intense, and the persecuting power of the empire was inevitably let loose” (“The Prophecies . . .,” 473).

This interpretation, however, does not account for the reserve with which the restraining power is mentioned, nor does it adequately account for the personal restrainer (ὁ κατέχων). Warfield, indeed, doubts if the masculine participle “demands interpretation as a person,” but if it does, “it might possibly be referred without too great pressure to James of Jerusalem” (474).

One merit of the imperial interpretation preferred in the comment above, is that it accounts at one and the same time for the diplomatic allusiveness of the language and for the alternation between the neuter and masculine genders (τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων). It may be added that even after the Roman Empire passed away, the principle of the wording did not become obsolete, for when the secular power in any form continues to discharge its divinely ordained commission, it restrains evil and prevents the outburst of anarchy.

If, however, Paul meant that the imperial power held back the advent of Antichrist, while John the seer identified the imperial power with Antichrist, must it be concluded that Paul and John held irreconcilable positions on this matter? Not necessarily. Is it conceivable, then, that the restrainer should himself become the Antichrist? Quite conceivable—the crisis provoked by Gaius, ten years before this letter was written, showed what the imperial power itself was capable of, and what had happened then might happen again, without such timely relief as brought that crisis to an end. But while civil authority was maintained as it was during the principate of Claudius, lawlessness was held at bay and the cause of Christ advanced throughout the Roman world. Indeed, to such an extent was good order maintained even under the persecuting empire that Tertullian, a century and a half later, believed that Antichrist could not appear so long as the Roman state remained intact.

That's it for Bruce's excursus.

My next two posts will be by scholars whose respective commentaries have been ranked by D. A. Carson as the best in their respective fields of study (the first in the sixth edition of his New Testament Commentary Survey, and the second in his seventh edition). That is significant to my mind, because D. A. Carson is a premillennial futurist (as he affirmed to me in a personal letter many years ago, during a series of exchanges via snail mail in which he recommended to me R. T. France's book-form doctoral thesis as the best expression of the preterism to which I was then attracted, and to which Carson was and presumably still is opposed. I say that simply to make the point that Carson's high praise for the next two commentaries I will quote from is not based on any presupposition on his part ― far from it; he just recognizes and honors superb exegesis when he sees it.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

From Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC: Eerdmans, 1999), by Charles A. Wanamaker:

.... Best (288f.) may well be correct that 2 Thes. 2:3f. is related to the emergence of the tradition about false Christs who would appear and lead the faithful astray (Mk. 13:21f.) and to the development of the Antichrist motif (1 Jn. 2:18; 4:3), which emerged toward the end of the first century AD.

2 Thes. 2:3f. is of considerable importance for the understanding of early Christianity. It offers us one of our earliest windows on the imagery of apocalyptic eschatology as found in the initial period of the Christian movement and shows the historicizing description of the eschatological events, which served to make the imminent eschatological expectations of the primitive community realistic to its adherents. This historicized and realistic quality is what gives the passage its prophetic character and causes the chief problem for those who seek to find some abiding validity in the passage.

Much of the language found in various Jewish and Christian apocalypses from the period is highly symbolic and does not purport to be prophetic. 2 Thes. 2:3f., however, reads like prophecy about historical events to come, and it is almost certain that this is how Paul and his readers would have understood it. The passage can no longer be understood as valid, since the temple was destroyed in AD 70 without the manifestation of the person of lawlessness or the return of Christ occurring. In order to maintain the continuing validity of the passage, some deny the obvious reference to the historical temple at Jerusalem, as does Marshall (191f.; he mentions others who do so for less plausible reasons than his own). A more straightforward way of treating the problem is to admit that the passage meant something very different to Paul and his original readers than it can mean for us today. Once this is acknowledged, Marshall’s conclusion (192) that the imagery of verses 3f. expresses “the reality and menace of the power of evil which attempts to deny the reality and power of God” offers us a meaningful interpretation of the passage, since it is as true today as it was in Paul’s day.

Paul and his contemporaries intuitively recognized that the type of evil that defies God and seeks to usurp his position derives from corrupt and unjust social and political institutions such as imperial rule under Gaius Caesar (cf. the attitude of the writer of Revelation toward Roman power). This insight informs the eschatological scenario of 2 Thes. 2:3–8 and reflects the sense of human powerlessness felt by the early Christians in the face of social and political processes that denied the truth of their beliefs in a good and just God and sometimes even led to their persecution, as at Thessalonica.

For Christians of today the problems are often more complex. Political figures and nation states arrogate to themselves Christian symbols to legitimate their unjust and oppressive practices such as apartheid, militarism, and imperialism (see The Road to Damascus: Kairos and Conversion for a discussion of this problem from the perspective of Third World Christians). Contemporary Christians must recognize in this a manifestation of the pervasive and arrogant evil described by Paul in 2 Thes. 2:4.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Via Accordance, from The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the NewTestament (NICNT: Eerdmans, 2007), by R. T. France ― commenting on Matthew 24:15 (all the many footnotes omitted except the only occurrence of the term "Antichrist" that occurs in the entire book/commentary):

15 The most obvious sign that “the end” is near in Jerusalem is cryptically described in familiar scriptural language. The “devastating pollution” 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 BC, when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered Jerusalem and prohibited Jewish sacrificial worship, setting up an altar for pagan sacrifices (including the slaughter of pigs) on top of the altar of burnt offering (Josephus, Ant. 12.253); it stood in the temple for three years until Judas Maccabeus regained control of Jerusalem and purified the temple and restored its true worship. 1 Macc 1:54 describes this pagan altar by the same phrase bdelygma erēmōseōs; for the reconsecration of the temple see 1 Macc 4:41–58.

The specific desecration referred to in Daniel was now long in the past, and Jesus is speaking of something still to come. That is why discernment is needed: hence the editorial aside, “let the reader understand this” [Matt, p. 912] which itself recalls the comment in Dan 12:10 that only the wise will understand the secrets revealed to Daniel. The reader is presumably to identify something which is in recognizable continuity with the devastating pollution set up by Antiochus, but just what form it will take is left to the imagination. The wording suggests some sort of offensive pollution “set up in the holy place,” which should mean the temple, and the context requires that it be of such a nature and at such a time as to allow those who see it to escape before it is too late. The neuter participle “set up” (see p. 897, n. 10) is apparently a deliberate change from Mark’s masculine, and so denotes an object or occurrence rather than a person.* Those who believe that this whole section is a “prediction” written up in the light of what actually happened have attempted without much agreement to suggest a suitable identification (see below); those who regard it as genuine prediction may feel that any such specific identification is neither possible nor necessary, and that all that the text asserts is that some act of sacrilege will alert Judeans that disaster is about to fall.

Our limited knowledge of events in first-century Palestine has [Matt, p. 913] prompted three main proposals of historical events which might have been recognized as the “devastating pollution” by those who had heard of Jesus’ prediction. (a) In AD 40 the emperor Gaius gave orders for a statue of himself to be set up in the temple at Jerusalem; fortunately the order had still not been carried out when Gaius was assassinated in AD 41, thus averting what would have been a bloody uprising. (b) Probably during the winter of AD 67/8 the Zealots took over the temple as their headquarters and Josephus speaks with horror of the way they “invaded the sanctuary with polluted feet” and mocked the temple ritual, while the sanctuary was defiled with blood as factional fighting broke out (Josephus, War 4.150–157, 196–207). (c) When the Roman troops eventually broke into the temple the presence of their (idolatrous) standards in the sacred precincts would inevitably remind Jews of Antiochus; Josephus even mentions Roman soldiers offering sacrifices to their standards in the temple courts (War 6.316). Luke’s parallel to this verse (Luke 21:20, “Jerusalem surrounded by armies”) apparently understands the “devastating pollution” in this sense. None of these three events quite fits what this verse says: the Gaius event was too early (and in fact never happened) and the Roman presence in the sanctuary too late to provide a signal for escape before the end came, while the Zealot occupation, which took place at the right time, was perhaps not quite the type of pagan defilement envisaged by Daniel. It seems wiser not to claim a specific tie-up with recorded history, but to recognize that desecration of the temple was an ever-present threat once the Roman invasion had been provoked.

It may be remarked in passing that if, as many claim, Matthew was writing after the event, it is strange that he could not produce a clearer and more convincing account of this preliminary sign. What had he to gain by writing so cryptically, and by failing to achieve a satisfying tie-up with what would then have been quite recent history? It makes better sense of the enigmatic nature of the sign to believe that Matthew was not only recording what Jesus said some decades before the event, but was also himself writing at a time when events were yet to unfold to the climax of the war with Rome.

*A personal identification of this figure has often been proposed on the basis of 2 Thes 2:3–10 which speaks of the παρουσία of the “man of lawlessness” who takes his seat in the temple and uses false signs and wonders to deceive the people; the association is perhaps already made in Did. 16:4 where a personal “deceiver of the world” is linked with the spiritual declension of Matt 24:9–12. Keener, 573–575, has a useful survey of the development of the idea of a personal “antichrist.” But whatever may be the case for Mark, it is most unlikely that if Matthew had such a scenario in mind he would have used the neuter participle here (against Mark), and the signs and wonders that he speaks of in v. 24 are not attributed to the “devastating pollution” but to (plural) messianic pretenders. It is perhaps significant that D. C. Sim, Apocalyptic 101–102, argues that Matthew envisages a personal antichrist not on the basis of what Matthew actually says but on the assumption that he knew the antichrist tradition of 2 Thes 2.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Via Accordance, from The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC: Eerdmans, 2002), by R. T. France ― commenting on Mark 13:14 (color emphasis added):

14. τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως occurs in LXX Dn. 12:11, and βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως in Thdt Dn. 12:11 and in LXX Dn. 11:31 (where Thdt has βδέλυγμα ἠφανισμένον). In the related text Dn. 9:27 both versions have βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, and in Dn. 8:13 both have ἡ αρτία ἐρημώσεως. In all these passages except the last the Hebrew phrase is šiqqûṣ (mᵉ)šômēm (a detested thing [normally used of idols] which desolates’, or perhaps ‘appals’), and in all cases the reference is clearly to the same event of the desecration of the temple sanctuary and the cessation of the regular burnt offering. No other use of this phraseology has been preserved except for 1 Macc. 1:54, where the same phrase is used in the account of the abolition of the temple cult in 167 B.C. (to which the Daniel passages also clearly referred), and is specifically identified as referring to an altar erected on top of the altar of burnt offering (cf. 1 Macc. 1:59). The historical reference is therefore unmistakable, and the additional note that this object stands ὅπου οὐ δεῖ fits the placing of the heathen altar on top of the altar of burnt offering in the temple. What the disciples should be on the lookout for, then, seems to be a repetition in some way of the sacrilege of 167 B.C.

Mark’s masculine participle ἑστηκότα is unexpected. βδέλυγμα is neuter, and the masculine could hardly be taken as a constructio ad sensum when the subject is an altar. There is nothing in the Daniel passages or in 1 Maccabees to suggest giving a personal meaning to the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. Is Mark then transferring the language to speak of a personal violator of the temple? That has been the conclusion of many who have then associated this passage with the prophecy in Thes. 2:3–4 of the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας who will take his seat in the ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ proclaiming himself to be God, and have taken it as referring not to the events preceding the destruction of the temple but to the eschatological conflict. That is not the only explanation of Mark’s masculine, however, and the fact that Mark’s βδέλυγμα is standing, not sitting like the man of lawlessness, while not in itself a crucial difference, may point us in a different direction. When Antiochus’s emissaries desecrated the temple by setting up a pagan altar, they also designated it the temple of Ζεὺς Ὀλύμπιος (2 Macc. 6:2) and installed a statue of its new god; if Mark had in mind a counterpart to such a statue of the (male) god Zeus, he might well have spoken of ‘him’ standing (masculine) in the temple.

Matthew refers explicitly to Daniel’s prophecy, so that in his version of the discourse the aside ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω could be understood as part of the reported speech, calling on the reader of Daniel to take note. Mark has not left us that option, since he refers to no written text. The clause must therefore be an aside by the author (for similar asides see 2:10; 3:30; 7:3–4, 19), calling on the reader of his discourse to take note of the preceding clause. That is all that νοέω need imply: the aside is an N.B. But in view of the cryptic nature of the reference to a βδέλυγμα standing where he should not it is probably also a warning that the meaning is not on the surface and will need to be thought out if the reader is to be in a position to take appropriate note of this ‘sign’ (cf. Rev. 13:18; 17:9 for the need for νοῦς in order to profit from cryptic symbolism). To perceive the relation of coming events to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus may need some lateral thinking.

Once the presence of the βδέλυγμα is perceived, action must not be delayed (τότε). The summons is not to people in Jerusalem but to those ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ. Mark mentions Judaea as such only three times elsewhere, in two of which Jerusalem is also mentioned as a separate item in the geographical list (1:5; 3:7), while in the third (10:1) it denotes Jesus’ arrival in the province on the way to Jerusalem, where he will not arrive until the next chapter. It seems unlikely, therefore, that he used the term carelessly here as a synonym for Jerusalem (which it is not). It is Judaea as a province which is in danger, and from which people are exhorted to escape εἰς τὰ ὄρη. Since much of Judaea, including Jerusalem and many of the main cities, is in ‘the mountains’, this may be a call not so much to emigrate to another province (Marxsen’s theory that Mark is writing to urge the church to go north to Galilee to await the coming of the Son of Man lacks any basis in the text) as to abandon the towns and hide away in the hills. See on 3:13 for the meaning of εἰς τὰ ὄρη. Cf. Ezk. 7:16 for the hills as a place of survival when Judah was overrun by the Babylonians, and for other OT references to refuge in the hills see, for instance, Gn. 14:10; Je. 16:16. There is a nearer precedent in 1 Macc. 2:28 where we are told that in 167 B.C. Mattathias, as soon as he had declared his opposition to Antiochus’s new religious policy, ἔφυγεν εἰς τὰ ὄρη with his sons, leaving all their possessions in the town (cf. also 2 Macc. 5:27).

Such a call could fit into what we know of the war in Judaea at a number of points. In Josephus’s account the actual siege of Jerusalem does not begin until the early part of A.D. 70, by which time the war in Judaea had already lasted on and off for three and a half years. After the initial abortive campaign of Cestius Gallus in Judaea in late 66, Vespasian concentrated first on Galilee and Peraea, but then brought most of Judaea under control in the early part of 68. Operations were then suspended owing to the Roman civil war, until a further campaign in mid–69 subjugated the rest of the province except Jerusalem and the fortresses of Herodium and Masada. It was not until Passover of A.D. 70, after Vespasian had again suspended the war to become emperor, that Titus’s army arrived before the walls of Jerusalem. At what point in this sequence of events in Judaea it might have been appropriate to escape to the hills is a matter of speculation, but our understanding of Mark’s text, if he wrote before any of these events occurred, is not affected. Judaea is facing a time of great suffering, and ordinary people must be prepared for hard times.

Among suggested historical identifications of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, which was to trigger this flight, three merit mention here. (a) The instruction by the emperor Gaius (Caligula) that a statue of himself should be installed in the temple at Jerusalem has the obvious attraction that a male statue might explain the masculine ἑστηκότα, and it is hard to imagine a more horrifying profanation of the temple or one more comparable to that of Antiochus. Two obvious problems, however, outweigh the attraction: the instruction was never carried out, and in any case the date (A.D. 40) is so far in advance of the war in Judaea as to make it a poor ‘sign’, as Mark must have known.

(b) The Roman legions carried standards which were regarded with religious awe by the soldiers, but as idolatrous by Jews; they were therefore never carried into Jerusalem, to avoid provoking Jewish hostility (cf. Pilate’s abortive attempt to do so; Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). To see such standards in the temple area would be as grave a profanation as Antiochus had perpetrated; Josephus even records that the Roman soldiers offered sacrifices to the standards in the temple courts while the sanctuary was burning (War 6.316). The obvious advantage of this identification is that it links Mark’s βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως with Luke’s ‘parallel’, ‘Jerusalem surrounded by armies’, but again it has no value as a sign to escape: by the time the Roman standards were standing where they ought not escape was impossible, and Judaea’s war was over.

(c) Josephus (War 4.150–57) records than in the winter of 67/8 the Zealots under John of Gischala took over the temple itself as their headquarters and μεμιασμένοις τοῖς ποσὶ παρῄεσαν εἰς τὸ ἅγιον, appointing their own mock high priest to carry out a travesty of temple ritual; popular outrage led to fighting within the temple itself (4.196–207) with Zealot blood defiling the sanctuary (201). Cf. also War 4.388 for an ‘ancient prophecy’ that the city would be taken and the temple burned when ‘native hands’ had first defiled it; Josephus sees this prophecy fulfilled in the Zealots’ actions. Even allowing for the extravagance of Josephus’s language, this outrage might have reminded some of the desecration under Antiochus, and it took place just before the first major campaign of Vespasian in Judaea, when it was still possible to escape into the hills. Might Mark’s reader have recognised in these events the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, and possibly even have referred the masculine ἑστηκότα to John of Gischala? Perhaps, but whether that is what either Mark or Jesus had in mind we cannot say.

As mentioned above, the wording of verses 14–16 does not directly suggest that the disciples (who were Galileans) would themselves be involved in the troubles of Judaea. The third-person imperatives are addressed ‘to whom it may concern’. Eusebius, H.E. 3.5.3, records a tradition that πρὸ τοῦ πολέμου the Christian community of Jerusalem emigrated from the city to Pella in the Decapolis (which, as a Gentile city, was not involved), and that they were prompted to do so by ‘a certain oracle given by revelation to the approved people there’. The common suggestion that that oracle was Mk. 13:14 is doubtful in view of the fact that Pella is not in τὰ ὄρη; it is in fact below sea level, some 3,000 feet lower than Jerusalem. A significant number of scholars, following Brandon, doubt the historicity of Eusebius’s report.

[John Reece]

The Beast of Revelation Identified

Read this and see how it compares with the description of "antichrist" in the Johannine letters.

[Faber]

According to Josephus, Antiquities (Whiston xiv.10.2-7; Niese 14:190-212) (but not in Whiston xiv.10.8; Niese 14:213), Julius Caesar was "autokrator" or "imperator" and addressed himself as such in documents quoted by Josephus. It was a title, meaning conqueror, granted to him by the senate in 45 BC. The description definitely fit him. Granted, he was dictator.

But in another sense, the Roman republic didn't become an empire until 27 BC, according to Dio Cassius (Roman History liii.16) and Plutarch (Moralia). The senate granted Octavius the titles of Augustus and Princeps.

If we hold Augustus as the first of five kings who are fallen, then Galba would have been the sixth, and Revelation would have been written during his rule (June 9, AD 68 to January 15, AD 69). Vespasian's conquest of Galilee would have taken place. The seventh king would have been Otho, who was emperor for only two months, shorter than Galba. Aulus Vitellius was afterward established emperor by the senate, but not unanimously accepted by the armies (especially the legions in the eastern part of the empire). He had competition from Vespasian, who returned to Rome, defeated Vitellius and became the next person to be universally recognized as emperor. This line of reasoning would make Vespasian the eighth king.

I understand the logic behind NRWN QSR = 666 in Hebrew, but Revelation was written in Greek and addressed to the seven churches in Asia Minor. I would think that the more logical number for Nero would be 1005, according to popular graffiti at the time, Νερων = ιδιαν μητερα απεκτεινε (Nero killed his own mother), or 50+5+100+800+50 = 10+4+10+1+50+40+8+300+5+100+1+1+80+5+20+300+5+10+5 0+5.

That being said, Kenneth Gentry makes much sense. I just don't think that 1-2 John's reference to antichrists was prophetic in nature. Rather, I think he is warning against heresy known as Docetism. He describes them as once-professing Christians who departed from the fellowship, making it manifest that they were never really part of the fellowship of believers (1 John 2:19). They deny the incarnation, that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7).

John even stresses the idea on the incarnation of Jesus in his Gospel, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The term comes from the Greek dokesis, meaning “an apparition”. This is the belief that Jesus could not have come in bodily form, because the material world is evil. He only “appeared” to be human, and didn’t actually suffer and die on the cross, nor did He shed His blood for sinners, because apparitions don’t have blood. Docetists would refuse to take part in the Lord’s Supper, which symbolized the body and blood of Jesus.

Docetism existed in the first century, AD. We learn from Jerome, "When the blood of Christ was but lately shed and the apostles were still in Judaea, the Lord’s body was asserted to be a phantom." (Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (The Dialogue against the Luciferians) trans. by Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace)

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was a disciple under John the Apostle. In a letter he wrote to the church at Smyrna before his martyrdom, he describes a heresy which fits Docetism, "For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death." (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Smyrneans (shorter version) Chapters I-III, V, VII; trans. by A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, LLD)

The bottom line is, I'm really talking about two different issues here: That the term "antichrist" is referring to the first century heresy of docetism, and that the beast of Revelation, popularly referred to as "The Antichrist" could fit Vespasian (or Titus) as well as Nero.

[John Reece]

According to Josephus, Antiquities (Whiston xiv.10.2-7; Niese 14:190-212) (but not in Whiston xiv.10.8; Niese 14:213), Julius Caesar was "autokrator" or "imperator" and addressed himself as such in documents quoted by Josephus. It was a title, meaning conqueror, granted to him by the senate in 45 BC. The description definitely fit him. Granted, he was dictator.

But in another sense, the Roman republic didn't become an empire until 27 BC, according to Dio Cassius (Roman History liii.16) and Plutarch (Moralia). The senate granted Octavius the titles of Augustus and Princeps.

If we hold Augustus as the first of five kings who are fallen, then Galba would have been the sixth, and Revelation would have been written during his rule (June 9, AD 68 to January 15, AD 69). Vespasian's conquest of Galilee would have taken place. The seventh king would have been Otho, who was emperor for only two months, shorter than Galba. Aulus Vitellius was afterward established emperor by the senate, but not unanimously accepted by the armies (especially the legions in the eastern part of the empire). He had competition from Vespasian, who returned to Rome, defeated Vitellius and became the next person to be universally recognized as emperor. This line of reasoning would make Vespasian the eighth king.

I understand the logic behind NRWN QSR = 666 in Hebrew, but Revelation was written in Greek and addressed to the seven churches in Asia Minor. I would think that the more logical number for Nero would be 1005, according to popular graffiti at the time, Νερων = ιδιαν μητερα απεκτεινε (Nero killed his own mother), or 50+5+100+800+50 = 10+4+10+1+50+40+8+300+5+100+1+1+80+5+20+300+5+10+5 0+5.

That being said, Kenneth Gentry makes much sense. I just don't think that 1-2 John's reference to antichrists was prophetic in nature. Rather, I think he is warning against heresy known as Docetism. He describes them as once-professing Christians who departed from the fellowship, making it manifest that they were never really part of the fellowship of believers (1 John 2:19). They deny the incarnation, that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7).

John even stresses the idea on the incarnation of Jesus in his Gospel, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

The term comes from the Greek dokesis, meaning “an apparition”. This is the belief that Jesus could not have come in bodily form, because the material world is evil. He only “appeared” to be human, and didn’t actually suffer and die on the cross, nor did He shed His blood for sinners, because apparitions don’t have blood. Docetists would refuse to take part in the Lord’s Supper, which symbolized the body and blood of Jesus.

Docetism existed in the first century, AD. We learn from Jerome, "When the blood of Christ was but lately shed and the apostles were still in Judaea, the Lord’s body was asserted to be a phantom." (Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi (The Dialogue against the Luciferians) trans. by Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace)

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was a disciple under John the Apostle. In a letter he wrote to the church at Smyrna before his martyrdom, he describes a heresy which fits Docetism, "For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death." (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Smyrneans (shorter version) Chapters I-III, V, VII; trans. by A. Cleveland Coxe, DD, LLD)

The bottom line is, I'm really talking about two different issues here: That the term "antichrist" is referring to the first century heresy of docetism, and that the beast of Revelation, popularly referred to as "The Antichrist" could fit Vespasian (or Titus) as well as Nero.

Thanks for your contribution.

[John Reece]

....

I understand the logic behind NRWN QSR = 666 in Hebrew, but Revelation was written in Greek ....

Read this thread.

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

From time to time if not day by day I propose to post paragraph excerpts from Bousset's book ― The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore — to demonstrate the difference between what is yielded via competent exegesis of biblical texts versus what is projected onto/into biblical texts via legendary Antichrist folklore.

Statement of the Problem

A survey of the eschatological parts of the New Testament, and more especially of those referring to the fearful storms and stress of the last days shortly before the general doom, gives a decided impression that we have here nothing more than the fragmentary survivals of a tradition which points at greater associations now shrouded in mystery. [pages 19-20]

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from last post (wherein the page number is 19; I mistakenly wrote 19-20 ― which it the correct citation for the post below↑

From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 19-20):

Chapter II Statement of the Problem

This character of the tradition is most pronounced in chap. xi of the Revelation of S. John. Specially puzzling is here the sudden appearance of the beast that comes up out ot the pit and kills the two witnesses (verse 7). If we suppose that in the expression "the beast that ascendeth out of the pit" the hand of the "editor" of Revelation has been at work, still there is the reference in verse 7 to a demoniacal power by which the two witnesses are slain. As this can by no means be separated, as Spitta would have it, from the general context, the fragment remains all the more puzzling. In any case the sudden cessation of the testimony of the witnesses after three years and a half must still have been brought about by some hostile power. But where are we elsewhere to look for the appearance of the witnesses and the beast? According to verse 8, in Jerusalem. Even apart from the words "where also our [their] Lord was crucified," Jerusalem is unmistakably indicated both by the circumstance that in the earthquake in which the tenth part of the city fell seven thousand men were slain (verse 13). For the assumption that the scene takes place in Rome there is not a particle of evidence. The assertion that Jerusalem could not be called "the great city" can be shown to be groundless, while the fact that Rome is elsewhere in Revelation also called "the great city" proves nothing for the explanation of this quite exceptional chapter.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from last post↑

From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 20-21):

Chapter II Statement of the Problem

But if everything thus points to Jerusalem as the theatre of these events, then comes the question, How are we to explain the appearance in Jerusalem of the beast which is elsewhere in Revelation associated with the Roman empire, with Rome itself, or with Nero returning from the Euphrates? Here a too hasty exposition of a single chapter of Revelation would avail nothing. For after all it is quite possible, nay, even tolerably certain, that we have in this book diverse cycles of thought lying close together. Moreover, who are the two witnesses? Why are they introduced at all? Why, and against whom, do they forebode the plagues? In what relation do they stand to the beast? Why does the beast of all others slay the witnesses? Who are the dwellers upon the earth who rejoice and make merry and send gifts to one another during the three days and a half that the witnesses lie dead? If we are to suppose that they gathered about Jerusalem, how did they get thither? Is it the Roman legions that are to tread Jerusalem under foot? But if so, how can these be spoken of as "they that dwell upon the earth"? All these are moot points which can never be solved by discriminating the sources within chapter xi.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post↑

From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, by Wilhelm Bousset (pages 21-22):

Chapter II Statement of the Problem

Now let us take it as unquestioned that in this chapter the figure of the Antichrist appears in Jerusalem, that he here stands in no relation to Rome and the Roman empire, or to the Gentiles, who, as would seem, tread Jerusalem underfoot. Then a parallel passage will at once be found in the eschatological section of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, whose authenticity I accept without however in my researches laying too much weight on this assumption. Here the very mysterious fragmentary manner of the exposition is obviously intentional. The author will not say more than he has said, but refers to his previous oral communications, giving the impression of an allusion to some esoteric teaching. In fact Paul speaks of a mystery in the words―"Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (chapter ii, verses 5-7). We read of "the man of sin," a "son of perdition," who is yet to come. This figure also of the Antichrist appears in Jerusalem ; he sitteth in the Temple of God, and proclaims himself God. His advent will be "after the working of Satan"; he will work "signs of lying wonders," and will beguile them that perish "with all deceivableness of unrighteousness,"

To be continued...

[John Reece]

The Antichrist Legend

Continued from last post↑

From The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (1895), by Wilhelm Bousset (page 22):

Chapter II Statement of the Problem

Here we have also an Antichrist who has nothing whatever to do with the Roman Empire. For the passage is not applicable even to Caligula and his whim to have his statue set up in the Temple of Jerusalem. By such an interpretation we should miss the most essential point―that is to say, the threatened profanation of the Temple by foreign armies. Here we have nothing but signs and wonders and deceits, and it is characteristic of the passage that it contains an altogether unpolitical eschatology―an Antichrist who appears as a false Messiah in Jerusalem and works signs and wonders. And when Paul says that this man of sin will lead astray those destined to perish because "they received not the love of truth, that they might be saved" (verse 10), it is quite evident that he is thinking of the Jews, to whom a false Messiah will be sent because they have rejected the true Messiah. But whence does Paul know all this, and who is the one that "letteth," who has to be "taken out of the way" before the coming of the Antichrist?

To be continued...