History of the antichrist

Good luck on that. I've always wanted a good history on apocalyptic; most want to argue a view. Antichrist ditto.

Mike's entry sounds offensive but appears to summarize the bulk of it: protestants needed a boogyman. And indeed, that's how you trace it in the OT > NT > Reformation.

One resource that I've found helpful is Revelation: Four Views by Steve Gregg. (I have it in dead tree form.)  It's not specifically focused on the antichrist per se, but it gives a useful summary of the different approaches to understanding end-times.  It works through the book of Revelation in a commentary format, presenting each of the major views in parallel.  That might give you a useful framework for discussing the antichrist with your sibling.

I suspect this one would be very helpful:

https://www.thomasnelson.com/9781418567170/the-apocalypse-code/

I wonder though why it's not in Logos or FL ebooks...

Jan Krohn said:

I suspect this one would be very helpful:

https://www.thomasnelson.com/9781418567170/the-apocalypse-code/

I wonder though why it's not in Logos or FL ebooks...

Back in the Libronix age, they were going to release Hanks life works, it was never released (at least) I never saw it for sale   They seem to have a problem working with the bible man  [:O]

You might find this interesting: It has a chapter on antichrist     https://www.logos.com/product/166476/the-last-days-according-to-jesus-when-did-jesus-say-he-would-return 

I haven't read this yet but DDD article:

ANTICHRIST ἀντίχριστος

I. The word antichristos is found only in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7, and in post-biblical Christian literature. Morphologically the closest analogy is antitheos which was in use since Homer (Od. 11:117; 13:378; 14:18). In Homer antitheos means ‘godlike’. In later times it comes to mean ‘contrary to God’ (for instance Philo, Poster. 37:3; 123:4; Congr. 118:1; Fug. 140:3). The termantichristos is ambiguous (‘opponent of →Christ’ or ‘false Christ’) owing to the twofold meaning of anti in composita: it can mean ‘against’ (antistratēgos: ‘the enemy’s general’, Thucydides 7:86) or ‘instead of’ (antipsychos: ‘something offered instead of one’s life’, Dio Cassius 59:8; neuter in 4 Macc 6:29; 17:21).

In the Epistles of John antichristos is used as a designation for the ultimate eschatological opponent of →JesusChrist. The appearance of the antichristos is expected to precede the parousia of Christ. The author of 1 and 2 John refers to this expectation as an existing tradition (1 John 2:18: ‘as you have heard …’), although the tradition of Antichrist is not attested in its full form before Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5:25–30). After having referred to the tradition the author uses the word antichristos to characterize his opponents who as antichristoi deny Christ (1 John 2:18—plural; 1 John 2:22; 2 John 7—singular). Their teaching is inspired by the spirit of Antichrist, and presented by the author as proof that Antichrist has already come (1 John 4:3). By interpreting the conflict with those who deny Christ (1 John 2:22) by means of the expectation of Antichrist, the author of the Epistles of John argues the nearness of the end (1 John 2:18!).

II. Neither the word antichristos nor a Hebrew or other equivalent is used in any of the versions of the OT or in extra-biblical literature of the period. But although the word is not used before the Epistles of John, the concept of eschatological opposition reaching its climax in the appearance and activity of a single person is already found in some OT passages: Ezek 38–39 mentions →Gog of →Magog as Israel’s final enemy (cf. Rev 20:8); Dan 7–8, 11describes the appearance of an evil tyrant who will act as the final enemy of God and Israel. The tradition of an evil tyrant as the climax of eschatological evil should be understood as a specification of the tradition of the eschatological enmity of the pagan peoples and Israel (cf. Isa 5:25–30; 8:18–20; 10:5–7; 37:16–20; Nah 3:1–7; Joel 3; Zech 14). This expectation of eschatological hostility between Israel and the peoples is also expressed in extra-biblical sources. Sometimes the hostility is thought to reach a climax in the rise of an eschatological tyrant (1 En.90:9–16; Ass. Mos. 8; 2 Apoc. Bar. 36–40; 70; 4 Ezra 5:1–13; 12:29–33; 13:25–38). Among the various passages of the Qumran literature containing forms of eschatological dualism, the account of Melchizedek and Melchiresha in 4Q280–282 and 4QAmram takes a special place as an analogy: as in the case of Christ and Antichrist the typology of agent (= prototype) and opponent (= antitype) appears to have been constitutive.

There are a number of passages in the NT that predict or record the appearance of eschatological opponents without using the word antichristos. In Mark 13:22 false Christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets (pseudoprophētai) are described as appearing before the end (cf. v 6). They will deceive people by doing signs and wonders (cf. Matt 7:15; 24:11, 23–24). Obviously, the evangelist is referring here to people of his own time. Some interpreters wrongly regard the ‘desolating sacrilege’ of Mark 13:14 as referring to Antichrist (see for instance J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus [EKK II/2; Neukirchen 1979] 195–196). As there is no hint whatsoever in this direction, the masculine participle hestēkota should be explained in a different way (for instance as a reference to ‘the Roman’).

In 2 Thess 2:3–12 the coming of the ‘Lawless One’ is described as preceding the parousia of Christ. This Lawless One will act haughtily, and proclaim himself as a god. He will act with the power of →Satan, and deceive people by doing signs and wonders. Ultimately, he will be vanquished by Christ (v 8). Although the word antichristos is not used, the Lawless One is often regarded as the earliest description of Antichrist. This interpretation is attested at least since Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii:8.7). Still it should be noted that the Lawless One is rather a future, eschatological ‘anti-God’ than an Antichrist (v 4).

In Revelation there are a number of eschatological opponents. The most prominent of these are the →Dragonand the two Beasts mentioned in chaps. 12–13; 16:13; 20:10. The Dragon is presented as “the Old →Serpent”, “Satan” (20:2). The second Beast, the Beast from the Land (13:11–18), is identified as “the false prophet” (16:13; 20:10). The first Beast is only spoken of as “the Beast” (to thērion), and is also described without the Dragon and the second Beast (11:7; chap. 17). This adversary is often wrongly spoken of as Antichrist. With the images of the Beasts the author of Revelation is referring to the dangers of his own time.

At least three different traditions form the background of the tradition of Antichrist, which is attested in its full form from Irenaeus onward: that of Satan / →Belial, that of the coming of eschatological false prophets (cf. Meeks 1967), and that of the final eschatological tyrant as described in Daniel. Possibly, also the myth of Nero-redivivus played a part. The old view of an esoteric, pre-Christian tradition of Antichrist (Gunkel 1895; Bousset 1895; Charles 1920) was successfully refuted by Ernst 1967, Jenks 1991 and Lietaert Peerbolte1996. They rightly argued that the concept of Antichrist is a Christian idea and that it was not fully developed until the late 2nd century ce. As a result, the various passages before Irenaeus that describe eschatological opponents should be regarded as witnesses of separate traditions, not of one continuous tradition. The agreement between these passages lies in the fact that they all reflect upon events that were thought to precede the parousia of Christ. Yet the ways in which these events are described differ widely: in the Epistles of John the tradition of Antichrist is used for the interpretation of the conflict with the deniers of Christ. Thus the nearness of the end is argued. In 2 Thess the coming of the Lawless One is predicted in order to justify that the end will notcome shortly. The images of the Beasts in Rev describe the contemporary situation of persecution and argue that Christ will overcome this situation of distress. And Mark 13:22 (and par.) speaks about false prophets and false Christs as a standard feature of the last days, but assuming that those last days had already begun.

III. Of post- and extra-biblical literature Did. 16 and Asc. Isa. 4 contain the earliest and most extensive descriptions of an eschatological opponent of Christ. The word ‘Antichrist’ is used in neither of these descriptions, however. It is mentioned for the first time in post-biblical literature in Polycarpus’ Phil. 7:1, a reference to 1 John 4:2–3. Extensive speculations on the rise, character, outlooks, etc., of Antichrist are found in Christian literature from the latter part of the second century onward: one could mention Tertullian, Res. Car.xxiv: 60, 24; xxvii: 64, 26; 65, 10; Adv. Marcionem i:22, 1; iii:8, 2; v:16, 4; Hippolytus, De Antichristo, passim; Comm. Dan. iv:24, 7–8 and numerous other passages (see Jenks 1991:27–116).

IV. Bibliography

O. Böcher, Antichrist II, TRE 3 (Berlin, New York 1978) 21–24; *W. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und der frühen Kirche (Göttingen 1895); R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, New York 1982); *R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh 1920) II, 76–87; *J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg 1967); M. Friedländer, Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen jüdischen Quellen (Göttingen 1901); K. Grayston, The Johannine Epistles, (NCB; Grand Rapids / Basingstoke 1984) 76–82; H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 1895); *G. C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist-Myth (BZNW 59; Berlin & New York 1991); L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist. A Traditio-Historical Study on the Earliest Christian Views of Eschatological Opponents (JSJS 49; Leiden, New York, Köln, 1996); E. Lohmeyer, Antichrist, RAC 1 (1941), 450–457; W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology(Leiden 1967) 47–55; B. Rigaux, L’Antéchrist et l’opposition au royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Gembloux 1932); G. Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe (KEK 14; Göttingen 1989) 337–343; Strecker, Der Antichrist. Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von 1 Joh 2:18.22; 4:3 und 2 Joh 7, Text and Testimony (eds. T. Baarda, A. Hilhorst, G. P. Luttikhuizen & A. S. van der Woude; Kampen 1988) 247–254; R. Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe (HTKNT XIII/3; Freiburg 1979) 145–149.

L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte

I checked his author page earlier, and it was not there:

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/search?context=product&sortBy=Relevance&limit=15&page=1&filters=status-live_Status%2Bauthor-6256_Author

Maybe someone at FL was able to add it. :-)

Deborah has announced that they're working on new contracts. Be patient...

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/177623.aspx?PageIndex=2

Rosie Perera said:

Not available in Logos, but you might find Robert C. Fuller's Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (Oxford University Press, 1995) useful.

EDIT: Just discovered it is available as an e-book from Google Books, and you can look at a preview of it there.

Thank you, Rosie. I started looking at the author; what a fascinating range of writings! I got carried away with:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CN50AIW/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i9 

I finished another book on how early trauma can impact the mind/body. Then I got to thinking about the theological implications. I'm hoping he'll touch on that. He also has a volume on the unchurched.

Ok, back to the antiChrist.

From Tom's list, I was looking at McGinn. He has quite a few, but one on 2,000 years of the antiChrist:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060655437/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p2_i11 

Not expensive, but the reviews get excited.

Mattillo said:

Jan Krohn said:

Tom said:

Back in the Libronix age, they were going to release Hanks life works, it was never released (at least) I never saw it for sale   They seem to have a problem working with the bible man  

Many of Hank's works are in ebooks now, but not this particular one.

I'll ask around to see if I can convince FL to add this to FLEB

It seems it is in FLEB!  Oops  https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/12405/the-apocalypse-code-find-out-what-the-bible-really-says-about-the-end-times-and-why-it-matters-today 

Just saw he has his trilogy on the past last times for about $5.  https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/144670/the-last-disciple-collection-the-last-disciple-the-last-sacrifice-the-last-temple   

Cheaper then a individual copy  

I enjoyed reading it in print a few years ago.   

Denise said:

From Tom's list, I was looking at McGinn. He has quite a few, but one on 2,000 years of the antiChrist:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060655437/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p2_i11 

Not expensive, but the reviews get excited.

Just bought a used HC so we'll see how exciting it is in a couple of weeks.

MJ. Smith said:

Denise said:

that's how you trace it in the OT > NT > Reformation.

Are you sure you said precisely what you meant in the string above?

• The Origin of the Myth that the Pope is the Antichrist 
• Wikipedia has a decent article that covers a fair historical swath.
• TGC offers The 7 Most Popular Contenders for the Title ‘Antichrist’

I'm sure, but I was generally defining it. Meaning, an against-God's-representative. Best I can see, it seems to show up about the same time as apocolyptic (and maybe shares the same thought process). My own opinion, Daniel/Ezekiel appear to be the first judaic to create a boogeyman vs a true righteous man (in this case Nebbie vs Daniel). And even Cyrus is oddly presented as YHWH's annointed (not even jewish). Prior OT is either not named (eg Pharoah), a satan type figure (Job, creation snake),  or against the people (Syria, Assyria, Babylon).

Thanks for the refs. I've always viewed an antiChrist pope as a religious canard, since the NT makes no apology for James in Jerusalem (central decider), and the subsequent protestant used the same structure, complete with sin-voting (vs dice with the apostles).

Added:

I forgot the OT to NT link, Ezekiel as the base for Revelations. 

MJ.

Milkman wants information about the Antichrist. He wants recommendation of resources in historical view. At least that is what I understood.

Maybe he has not considered that there is information about that entity, in other resources he has. I mentioned some of the things I read, so he can use some of that to find information that may be useful.

I am not discussing with Milkman about the Antichrist, just providing leads to where he can direct some focus for research. 

I am not saying that it is the ultimate guide, just some pointers.

I myself do not think the Pope is the antichrist. I did not start a discussion about that because that was not what Milkman asked about. 

Hamilton Ramos said:

I mentioned some of the things I read, so he can use some of that to find information that may be useful.

I don't know if you believe what you read or wrote, but I was really troubled by two things you had posted that I felt were prejudiced.

I appreciate that you're trying to help give Milkman some ideas of what he can research, but some of these viewpoints might come across as more hurtful than helpful.

Hamilton Ramos said:

I did not start a discussion about ...

Just providing a controversial lead, even if people don't reply to it, can be problematic.

I think it's best for all of us to try to follow the forum rules, and post theological viewpoints at a different site such as ChristianDiscourse.

PetahChristian said:

Just providing a controversial lead, even if people don't reply to it, can be problematic.

Which makes a good point, who determines what is a controversial lead?

I am not arguing with Milkman about anything, I am just telling him that there are certain thrusts that historically have been associated with the Antichrist and that come straight from the Bible.

I assume that Milkman wants to get to the root of the perceived problem some believers have with the antichrist, if is a future event. 

Does not Milkman have a right to investigate for himself to try to elucidate truth from the Bible to see if things are so?

PetahChristian said:

The forum guidelines say, "Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics."

Now, Petah. How can a gay, jewish guy, who rejected either YHWH or Jesus (not sure), and takes over a floating really-big city, be controversial? Granted, it sounds like the mid-1930s in Germany, but gee, what could happen?  Yes, I'm agreeing. Some things seem too obvious.

Denise:

Would not it be better to research and see why some believers have thought that way? Daniel 11:37.

Do not let contextual lived reality get in the way of studies:

The problem may not be that the antichrist in the hypothesis is supposedly Jew, (as true practicing Jews are a blessing to the world in any era), the problem is the supposed apostasy that happens.

What would make a person apostate? hope is not the ostrich attitude of hiding from strong, important, and controversial issues, and the taking action to prevent further problems (in a godly way, not unethical).

With the LGSBT move on the rise (having legit legal issues), how can we keep a check on the possible taking over by a charismatic leader (with really an anti Christ agenda), and prevent the use of such movement to unleash destruction on true believers, if the interpretation of Daniel is right about the antichrist?

Then the Al Mahdi question: can we do something to improve relations with Muslims to avoid pushing them into a coalition against Christians, or is clash inevitable?

So what is the responsibility of christians looking at possible future scenarios, and trying to ring the alarm, while some others still think the Pope is a problem?

Are general christians being misdirected as to the real threat?

The only fully orthodox Being in the Universe is God. But we should give some serious thought to hypothesis like the Al Mahdi, etc. lest it not catch us unprepared if proven true.

To compare the above with nazi Germany is in my opinion missing the point.

"we probably have nearly every heresy, schism and false doctrine represented."

Present!  [<:o)]

MJ thanks for the link.