A New Testament Theology of the Antichrist

Part 1: A Survey of the Recent Research

The scholarly debates surrounding the antichrist surveyed here will be placed into two categories. The first category will explore the origins of the antichrist tradition and the second will summarize the interpretations of the antichrist’s identity. After this brief survey of the research, I will write a second article in which I will aim to provide a synthesis of all the arguments from both of these categories.

The Origins of the Antichrist Tradition

In 1895, two major works were published that heavily dominated the focus of the scholarship on the antichrist. These works were:

1. Hermann Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit

2. Wilhelm Bousset’s Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judentums, des neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche.^[1]

Gunkel’s monograph is an exposition of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. In sum, he concludes Genesis 1, Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 were influenced by the stories chronicling the battles between the Babylonian gods Marduk and Tiamat.

Boussett’s monograph not only shared Gunkel’s view and furthered his research; it would become the more influential and foundational work for later research on the topic.^[2] Boussett’s method was to study the historical settings of the New Testament and the post-biblical writings on the antichrist in order to support his view of a secret, oral teaching on the antichrist that originated in the Jewish tradition. He viewed the New Testament writings as fragments of a larger hidden tradition.

Additionally, Friedländer’s Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen jüdischen Quellen aims to understand the antichrist tradition from the Jewish context.^[3] He proposed the Christian antichrist traditions originated from a Jewish sect called “the Minim.” The Minim was a lesser-known pre-Christian sect of Judaism and is similar in nature to some of the gnostic sects in the first two centuries.

Friedländer’s work suggests the Jewish teaching about the satanic figure, Beliar/Belial, provides essential background information for students who seek to know the origins of the antichrist. He understood the antichrist as the incarnation of Beliar/Belial and he labeled any supernatural being that rebelled against God as an antichrist.

Almost twenty years later, the Beliar/Belial tradition would also feature prominently in Robert H. Charles’ two-volume commentary on the book of Revelation.^[4] Charles made a significant contribution to these academic discussions by examining the antichrist tradition within the religious and cultural context of its development.

For instance, he highlighted the Hellenistic Jewish context of early Christianity and his findings helped support his theory of a three-stage development of the tradition. During stage one there were three independent traditions: the antichrist, the Beliar, and the Nero legend. Then a fusion occurred during stage two: a fusion of the antichrist-Beliar traditions and a fusion of the antichrist-Nero traditions. Lastly, the third stage brought all three independent traditions into one antichrist-Beliar-Nero tradition.

The Roman Catholic scholar, Béda Rigaux, produced the next major publication with his 1932 dissertation L'antéchrist: et l'opposition au royaume messianique dans l'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament.^[5] In the introduction he discredits the outdated work of Boussett and the weak evidence of Charles.^[6] With the Old Testament as his starting point and primary focus, Rigaux argues for a “messianic opposition…that is above all, collective and national in character.”^[7] However, this collective element was applied to historical individuals.^[8] Although he makes a significant contribution to this field of study, some recent scholars have criticized Rigaux for overstating his case.^[9]

In 1941, an article by German scholar, Ernst Lohmeyer, challenged the notion of a developed antichrist tradition.^[10] Twenty-six years later Josef Ernst elaborated on Lohmeyer’s article when he published Die Eschatologischen Gegenspieler in Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments.^[11] Going against much of the research before him, Josef Ernst declared, “the New Testament does not know this uniform and closed notion of the Antichrist.”^[12]

Similarly, G.C. Jenks and L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte both concluded the antichrist tradition does not come into form during the first two centuries.^[13] Although they both see similar eschatological themes among the New Testament authors they are not convinced these authors are writing about the exact same thing.

In sum, these studies reveal an ongoing debate and discussion about the origins of the antichrist theology. On the one hand, some scholars see evidence for antichrist themes and theology prior to the New Testament. On the other hand, other scholars argue that the Christian community, starting with Irenaeus, solidified the theology. In the following section I will summarize the interpretation options regarding the identity of the antichrist.

The Identity of the Antichrist

The various proposals of the antichrist’s identity can be sorted into two groups. The first group identifies the antichrist as an opponent from outside of the church and the second group identifies the antichrist as an opponent from inside the church.^[14]

Those who suggest the antichrist is an opponent from outside the church will often conclude that this opponent was or will be a political leader. This leader might be a ruler from the past (i.e. first century Roman emperor) or they will be an unknown tyrannical leader in the future. Arguments for an opponent from the outside will lean heavily on a more literal reading of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the descriptions of the first beast in Revelation 13.^[15]

However, those in the second group will lean heavily on the statements in 1 & 2 John and the descriptions of the second beast in Revelation 13.^[16] Even though these two groupings do not account for all the antichrist definitions or proposed identities of the antichrist, they do provide some helpful handles for a subject that can be quite challenging to grasp.

In Geert W. Lorein’s The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period^[17] he observes the enigmatic nature of the antichrist’s identity. In the first chapter of his monograph he criticizes many of the aforementioned studies for not providing a clear definition of the antichrist.^[18] Not wanting to make the same error, he then goes on to offer the following definition:

“The Antichrist is a man who will appear at the end of time, wholly filled with Satan. He will be an arch deceiver, as a tyrant (unjust, murderous) and as a false god (turning himself and other away from all existing religion).”^[19]

Although Lorein’s attempt to provide a definition is commendable, in my next article I will reveal some of the inadequacies of his definition. For now, I should point out that the biggest flaw of Lorein’s definition is that it based solely on his research of the intertestamental literature and not on the New Testament. I believe a proper presentation of the theology of the antichrist needs to be rooted in the New Testament scriptures, which is what I will be doing in the next article.

---

^[1] Hermann Gunkel and Heinrich Zimmern, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895). Wilhelm Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche: ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apocalypse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895). 

^[2] Boussett’s monograph was quickly translated into English a year later and he would also go on to publish a few more articles and chapters on the topic. Wilhelm Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter In Christian and Jewish Folklore, trans. Augustus Henry Keane (London: AMS Press, 1896). See pp. 291-294 in Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1903) and pp. 254-256 in Wilhelm Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966).

^[3] Moriz Friedländer, Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen jüdischen Quellen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901).

^[4] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John, 2 vols., The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920).

^[5] Béda Rigaux, L’antéchrist: et l’opposition au royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament(Paris: Duculot, 1932).

^[6] Ibid, x-xi.

^[7] Ibid, 203.

^[8] i.e. Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Gog, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and Pompey the Great. Ibid, 204.

^[9] Lorein, “Because Rigaux overrates the collective at the cost of the individual, he directs his study—which is very interesting nonetheless—less often toward the figure of the Antichrist before the New Testament period than the size of his work would suggest.” G. W. Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (New York: T & T Clark International, 2003), 18. Peerbolte, “He overestimated the influence of the Old Testament prophets while underestimating the continuity between the earliest Christian views and those of contemporary Judaism.” L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (New York: Brill, 1996), 10.

^[10] Ernst Lohmeyer, “Antichrist,” Reallexikon Für Antike Und Christentum 1 (1941): 450–57.

^[11] Josef Ernst, Die Eschatologischen Gegenspieler in Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: Pustet, 1967).

^[12] Ibid, 293.

^[13] Gregory C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991). Peerbolte, 1996.

^[14] For a summary of theologians who have held these views see, Alan F. Johnson, Revelation, vol. 12, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 521-522. See also Gerard S. Sloyan, Walking in the Truth: Perseverers and Deserters: The First, Second, and Third Letters of John, New Testament In Context Commentaries (New York: T & T Clark, 1995), 28-29.

^[15] See Irenaeus “Against Heresies” 5.25.1-5; 5.28.2; 5.30.2 in Alexander Roberts et al., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Father Down to A.D. 325, vol. 1 (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1885). See Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, Revised, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 220-221. 

^[16] i.e. Luther, Calvin and several other Reformers are well known for identifying the antichrist as Roman Catholic Church. The preface to the King James Version calls the pope “that Man of Sin.”

^[17] Lorein, 2003.

^[18] We have noticed several times that defining ‘Antichrist’ was difficult or had even been omitted. Bousset, for example, never gave a definition, but combined many elements into the rather vague collective term ‘Antichrist.’ Also in Gunkel’s work the definition is unclear. Charles originally defined the Antichrist as ‘a god-opposing being of human origin,’ but because of all the postulated fusions with other traditions it is unclear which definition goes with which phase. Apparently the contours of the Antichrist become clear relatively late in history. To Rigaux, the Antichrist is closely linked, throughout the centuries, to the collective anti-divine power. This position makes the picture less clear again. Ibid, 25.

^[19] Ibid, 29.