Secular Frontier: How Did The New Testament Authors Know The Antichrist Would Come?

[1Heidegger1!]

(The Devil whispers to the Antichrist; detail from Sermons and Deeds of the Antichrist, Luca Signorelli, 1501, Orvieto Cathedral. Wiki)
The word “antichrist” is used only in the Epistles of John, although a similar idea of “pseudochrist” (“false messiah”) is used by Jesus in Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:22. In John’s epistles the term seems to alternate between a person antichrist and a group of people identified as antichrists. Church father Polycarp understood the word as a group. 2 Thessalonians, a letter that is in dispute as to whether it is Paul’s or a later follower, identifies a man of sin traditionally understood to be the antichrist who was a real existential threat to deceiving the believer because the time of the end was imminent in Paul’s mind (the resurrected Christ being the “first fruits” of the end time harvest of souls). This figure is more fully explored in Revelation as the Beast of the Sea.

The notion of “anti-christ (s)” linguistically in the Greek suggests someone in opposition to Christ, but also someone who replaces Christ. The issue clearly seems to be antichrist refers to those preaching a Jesus apart from cross and resurrection theology, such as the historical Jesus of Ehrman’s interpretation contra Paul. Ehrman notes we look behind the cross/resurrection Jesus of the evangelists to the Jesus of history who taught the kingdom of God, not himself. So for example, we have the story of the rich young man who asks how to be saved, and Jesus doesn’t mention the cross or resurrection, but keeping the commandments and selling all he had to give to the poor. Paul would never have taught such things, but rather if righteousness came via the law, then Christ died for nothing. Paul gets very angry at those he lampoons as the “super-apostles” of Jesus who taught “another gospel,” who were not the Jerusalem bunch because Paul respected Peter, Jame and John who also taught the cross (e.g., the Corinthian creed). Rather, the super-apostles seem to be purists who taught Christ’s message before resurrection/cross theology: the message is the kingdom, not Jesus.

We can reverse engineer Paul’s thoughts here. If the focal point is not the death of Jesus, then God never exalted Jesus to a position he didn’t previously have and give him the divine name (Philippians 2). Moreover, Paul says if Christ is not raised your faith is in vain and you are still in your sins because you don’t have the exalted Christ in you, the mind of Christ amplifying your ability to discern and combat the temptations of Satan: Greater is he who is in me than he who is in the world.

We can see then why the NT writers are so sure the antichrist will come and be effective, since he is pointing to the Jesus of history rather than the Christ of faith who is a construct of some of his followers’ imaginations.

*** If this content interests you and you find my thoughts here interesting, brilliant, or stupid, please do stop by the blog of Internet Infidels / Secular Web SECULAR FRONTIER and let Bradley and I know what you think (we post independently of one another)!

For more on the topic of the Antichrist see my 3rd Robyn Walsh Essay.

 

[unapologetic]

"How Did The New Testament Authors Know The Antichrist Would Come?"
They didn't. They weren't predicting, they were willing him into existence. They made it up. They needed a villain to make their hero look good. It is all fiction.

 

[DBT]

If the return of Jesus in power and glory was meant to happen within a generation, as promised, the antichrist would be seen as one of the Emporers of Rome, Nero perhaps?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

If the return of Jesus in power and glory was meant to happen within a generation, as promised, the antichrist would be seen as one of the Emporers of Rome, Nero perhaps?

Yes, that is the general consensus of Bible scholars; that it was referring to Nero, and hence was not a prediction.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, regardless of whether they meant Nero, they weren't wrong about a particular cycle that anyone could probably pick out from the pattern of history: someone comes behind a religion; someone uses it to get power that the religion is supposed to preach against; those people wearing the face of religion do awful things in the name of it against those who hold the flame of the original intent of the religion especially; someone comes forward arguing reform; someone comes behind a religion...

It's a prophecy told by history, and the present, and the future.

We will always have antichrists, because we will always have people looking to fake themselves off as moral. They follow consistent patterns because humanity hasn't really changed much in thousands of years other than fancier toys.

 

[1Heidegger1!]

The presence of the antichrist spirit in the Christian narrative as the ultimate danger primarily means we are not considering an outside oppositional force but rather that Christianity contains within itself the loose thread of its own potential unraveling, the Jenga piece that once removed self-deconstructs the entire tower. The Christ of faith is lost in the search for the Jesus of history, the antichrist lampooning the unhistorical Christ. We saw this last time with how Mark cleverly inserts narrative elements that contradict the crucifixion/resurrection salvation guiding theme of his gospel. And, Mark playfully alerts the sophisticated reader to this right from the beginning having Jesus preach repentance and the kingdom of God, not himself and salvation through crucifixion/resurrection like what we see Paul emphasizes. We sometimes forget in our interpretations that focus on Jesus how the writers are also thinking about his counterparts (antichrist and Satan).

The more the antichrist spirit prompts us to find the man Jesus behind the curtain of the Christ of Oz, the more we find only smoke. Paul has only one narrative detail of the crucifixion, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and Mark builds an elaborate narrative about this, not out of historical fact, but by recapitulating psalms and Isaiah, and in fact takes this as his methodological clue to invent Jesus’ biography as an imitation of Jewish (haggadic midrash) and Greek (mimesis) literature. In other words, while Paul claimed Christ died and rose according to the scriptures, the 2 central elements of Paul’s faith, Mark ballooned this into a “new and greater” writing by presenting that Jesus’ entire life was lived according to the scriptures. Mark’s core imitation is presenting himself as a new and greater Paul

Paul wrote about half the New Testament, with virtually no biographical details because he wanted to focus on Christ and him crucified, and Mark lampoons this by constructing a detailed biography out of unhistorical typology and historical fiction. This drive of the antichrist spirit to leave faith behind and strive after the man Jesus is not superstitious invention, but the very spirit of “relationship to Jesus” and so for instance for the last 200 years scholars have always anew taken up what they call the quest for the historical Jesus, the next major installment of which will be:



It is the very meaning of New Testament scholarship to ever further abandon the Christ of Faith in search of the Jesus of history.

 

[Janice Rael]

It is the very meaning of New Testament scholarship to ever further abandon the Christ of Faith in search of the Jesus of history.

Why do you say this?

How do you know this to be true?

On what authority do you claim to have distilled this singular meaning, intent, or purpose, of anyone else's separate scholarly endeavors, regarding the New Testament? How about the Old Testament? How about the Quran? How about Dianetics?

How do you know this to be the "very meaning"? How can you be sure that your idea is the only right idea? You present it as a statement of fact, as an axiom.

Why?

How do you know with certainty that the meaning you assign to, say, your own scholarly pursuits, is definitely the "very meaning" of another person's own scholarly pursuit? Or the only meaning possible?

Do you lack other perspectives or viewpoints? Are you sure?

Do you lack evidence, for example, that not all scholarly pursuit of the New Testament is done for the purpose of, as you assert, "abandon[ing] [Jesus] Christ?"

I am just curious how you refute questions like mine. I'd like to learn more about defending different ideas and claims, from the people making the claims.

What if someone were to ask me such questions, about my own claims? I would want to be prepared to define my terms, defend my assertions and ideas, and change my language, actions, and/or mind if I am somehow mistaken or just wrong.

I would rather be right than happy. How about you? I've been so wrong, so many times! I dislike it.

Please, teach me your ways. I love what you said! Your words definitely have meanings. Tell me more about your meanings and why you say so. I want to learn what to say to defend the position you took.

My perceived beliefs regarding your intent and meaning surely cloud my judgement and my interpretation of what you said, so, I require clarification, because I want to understand why people believe, say, and do things. You're the one who said the thing.

Why do you say that New Testament scholarship can only have one purpose, and, it is also definitely the purpose that you personally like?