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 developmentsJoachim

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 powerLife and Letters i, 213), Strobel (UntersuchungenGegenspielerThreat

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.verses 3f 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):

15bdelygma erēmōseōs*WarWar

*Apocalyptic

[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 (mᵉ)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 WarWarWarH.E.

[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 (MoraliaAltercatio 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 (MoraliaAltercatio 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

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...