Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

 

 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. … Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:18-23 NKJV)

 

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

 

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7 NKJV)

 

 

 

Are you expecting the “Antichrist” to come to the world soon? Some well-meaning Christians are surprised to learn that the term “Antichrist” occurs only in these few passages and that these passages are ONLY from the first two epistles of John. The term “Antichrist” does NOT appear in Revelation. It does NOT appear in any of the gospels, Acts, or the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, or Hebrews, yet attempts to interject this term into end-time predictions in all of the above sources are myriad. Furthermore, some well-meaning Christians overlook the obvious indication in these passages that the term “antichrist” is primarily a PLURAL entity, not a SINGULAR entity. You may be wondering why we consider the “Antichrist(s)” in the context of “Excessive Righteousness.” We’ll get to that, in a moment.

 

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

It is not because the “Antichrist(s)” refers to the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness,” although one would think that ANYONE who followed some of the Law of Moses would possess righteousness that would exceed the righteousness of the Man of Lawlessness. Christianity.com (and many others) are wrong when they say: “In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to [the “Antichrist”] as the Man of Lawlessness.” Here are a few reasons that the two are not the same:

1.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:19 (NKJV), “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” In other words, the “Antichrist(s)” fellowshipped with the Church (and were even assumed to be Christians) for a while before going “out from” the Church. By contrast, the Man of Lawlessness is never mentioned in 2 Thessalonians as having once affiliated with the Church.

2.      The “Antichrist(s)” is never spoken of as “sit[ting] as God in the temple of God,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

3.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “exalt[ing] himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

4.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “coming … according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 (NKJV). There is no indication that the “Antichrist(s)” possessed any miraculous powers.

5.      True, the “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23 (NKJV), is a “liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” While 2 Thessalonians 2:4-5 (NKJV) states that the Man of Lawlessness comes “with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” Paul does not say that the specific lie he breathes is that he “denies that Jesus is the Christ.” According to Brittanica.com, the Book of Daniel “foretold the coming of a final persecutor who would ‘speak great words against the most High … and think to change times and laws’” (7:25).” Antiochus IV Epiphanes has been suggested as the reference in Daniel, but “Early Christians applied it to the Roman emperors who persecuted the church, in particular Nero (reigned [AD] 54–68).” Nevertheless, neither Daniel nor Paul states that the Man of Lawlessness “persecutes the Church,” or is opposed to Christ, in particular—just that he speaks against the “most High God,” according to Daniel. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that he “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” According to J.A.T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians in AD 50-51 (p. 352), three or four years before Nero even became Emperor, and well before he began persecuting Christians (AD 67) and even before he sent his troops to wage war with the Jews (AD 66). A better candidate for Paul’s Man of Lawlessness is the emperor Caligula, who died just one decade before Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I write in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (p. 82): “There is evidence that Caligula … shocked the whole Jewish world by commanding that his statue be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 40.  Perhaps John's discussion of the image of the beast alludes to this command.  The statue was never constructed, however.  Caligula's untimely assassination was the only thing that prevented his command from being carried out.” I continue on page 88: “It is highly probable that John, with his term ‘image [of the beast],’ is making allusion to the proposed statue of Caligula that would have been placed in the temple in A.D. 40, had Caligula not been assassinated.  If, as Wellhausen claims, ‘[t]he eikôn [image] is the alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the eikôn of God’ (cf. II Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15), then a living human being serves as the ‘image’ of the beast, just as the human, Jesus, serves as the ‘image’ of God.” Caligula is the best fit for Paul’s statement that the Man of Lawlessness “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Paul seems to suggest that this “mystery” of a Man of Lawlessness, sitting in the temple of God, had already begun before he wrote: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” Paul clearly knew, writing in 50-51, that Caligula had not actually sat “as God in the temple of God,” since he was assassinated a decade earlier, but knew that such a scenario (mystery) of lawlessness was on its way. John, in Revelation, then interprets this principle of a Man of Lawlessness sitting in the temple in AD 69 as the Jewish High Priest, the image of the Beast (Rome), requiring all Jewish patrons of the temple to worship the Roman Emperor Nero. I continue on pages 89-90 of Revelation: “The high priestly party could easily have been understood to be the talking ‘image’ of the beast who compelled people to worship Rome.  Zeitlin observes:

On … the beginning of January 66, a great assembly … establish[ed] a government to carry out … the war. It chose as head of the government the High Priest Ananus, a Sadducee who inherently was for peace.  ... This government … played a double role.  It thought it would achieve its goal by shrewdness. Speaking openly for war, inwardly it was for peace. It wanted to disarm the extremists so that it should have all power concentrated in its hands and thus be allowed to make peace with Rome. It failed utterly.

6.      The Man of Lawlessness is NOT the Antichrist. Rather, the Man of Lawlessness is the Jewish High Priest(hood), the “image of the Beast,” who lied to the Jewish people. The High Priest actually “sat in the temple,” encouraging the Jews to worship the Beast (Rome), and the High Priest actually offered sacrifices in the temple on behalf of the emperor (who did persecute both the Christians and the Jews: Nero).

 

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

If the Antichrist(s) is not the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness, who is he (or who are they)?

·         He and they ARE former Christians, at least in name. They “went out from us.”

·         In this respect, he and they are similar to those described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV): “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 10:25-26 (NKJV) who were “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some … For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 12:25 (NKJV) who were cautioned: “See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him.”

·         This “Antichrist” apostasy could be what I refer to (in Apocalyptic Apologetic, 100-1) where I mention J.A.T. Robinson (Redating, 207-8) reporting (regarding the Neronian persecution of Christians following the Roman Fire of AD 64):

[E]xceptional and dangerous circumstances, involving the betrayal of fellow-Christians … [in] the Neronian persecution in Rome. Describing it, Tacitus ... spoke of the “information” given by those who confessed which led to the conviction of their fellow-believers. Clement, reflecting on the same sad story from the Christian side, speaks of “a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among [the Christians].” … [The Shepherd of] Hermas … pictures vividly the various sections under pressure: “As many … as were tortured and denied not, when brought before the magistracy, but suffered readily, these are the more glorious in the sight of the Lord; their faith is that which surpasseth. But as many as became cowards and were lost in uncertainty, and considered in their hearts whether they should deny or confess … that a servant should deny his own lord.”

Even in Asia Minor, where being a Christian might not have cost someone that person’s life in the Neronian persecution, it certainly might have cost one’s livelihood. So, in a move to protect their businesses and business interests, many “Christians” chose to put distance between themselves and the Church. Perhaps, as a show of good faith to Rome, these “Jewish Christians” even participated in pagan festivals. It was just good business. Robinson [Redating, 211-12] comments:

If we ask why now [the Jewish Christians] were … “staying away” from assembling with their fellow Christians ([Hebrews] 10:24f.), we may recall that in his description of the [Neronian]  persecutions, [the Shepherd of] Hermas speaks of those who “were mixed up in business and cleaved not to the saints;” they “stood aloof ... by reason of their business affairs ... from desire of gain they played the hypocrite .... Some of them ... are wealthy and others are entangled in many business affairs;” and the wealthy “unwillingly cleave to the servants of God, fearing lest they may be asked for something by them. ... [T]he Jewish community in Rome had a strong business sense, which was reflected in its Christian members. Their temptation was to allow racial and economic connections to outweigh the commitment of their Christian faith. … [T]hey sought to shelter under the ‘protective colouring’ of the religio licita [=legal religious status] of Judaism.”

In [Revelation’s] terminology, the synagogue of Satan, Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, and the Balaamites sold out their fellow Christians. Since the Jews were exempt from Nero’s persecution of the Christians—because Judaism was considered an “acceptable religion” (religio licita), many Jewish Christians became—like the high priesthood in Jerusalem—“harlots” who committed porneia with Roman authorities. Their garments were “defiled” because they chose to be in league with the Beast.

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

In the Antichrist(s), we are not looking at the typology of Christians who are struggling with their faith, as may be the case with someone who cannot answer the arguments pressed upon him/her by an unbelieving academic world. To the contrary, like Judas, they know who Jesus is, yet they reject him anyway. Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they “crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” An Antichrist is not an agnostic, unbeliever, or even an honest atheist. Indeed, the Antichrist knows who Jesus is! He “is a liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either” (1 John 2:22 NKJV). One might well say to an Antichrist (just as one could say to Judas): “You know, don’t you!” Nevertheless, for financial gain (“thirty pieces of silver” or business purposes) or for social or academic acceptance, etc., the Antichrist will deny the Son (and, by extension, the Father). Like Judas, the Antichrist will hand Jesus over to be crucified again, all the while knowing the truth “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [and] is of God” (1 John 4:2 NKJV).

 

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

Thus, we return to the Unforgiveable Sin. It was identified in my blogpost Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin. There, I point out: “If ‘blasphemy’ consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted … then they themselves are guilty of ‘blasphemy’ when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub.” They knew that there is no actual god Beelzebub who had given Jesus the power to heal. It was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly knew better to lie to and deceive those who believed in them, suggesting that Beelzebub actually existed.

Likewise, it is unforgiveable for Christians who were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” and, therefore, certainly know better to lie to and deceive those who believe in them, denying that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh.

 

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

1.      Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (knowing that there is no other God, yet claiming that a power like Beelzebub exists) and

2.      Antichrist behavior (knowing that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh, yet denying that claim and, thereby, crucifying Him all over again).

Since God and Jesus are the only two in existence who can determine what righteousness is (i.e., the only ones who can issue moral commandments), political correctness, wokeness, DEI, Thomas Paine’s “human experience and rationality,” etc., are not the grounds for determining righteousness. If one’s righteousness will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, one must begin by recognizing the exclusiveness of God’s Law and Christ’s commandments, and then seek to correctly interpret those laws and commandments.

John said that many Antichrists had already come when he wrote his epistles. Some want to speculate concerning the identity of some eschatological Antichrist. The clearest Antichrist known to the world is Judas, who knew who Jesus was and betrayed Him to be crucified anyway. Jesus said at His Last Supper: “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24 NKJV). Whatever we do, we must certainly avoid being another Antichrist, ourselves!