A New Testament Theology of the Antichrist
Part 2: A Biblical Synthesis of the Origins and Identity of the Antichrist
[Click here if you would like to read Part 1: A Survey of the Recent Research]
The aim of this second article is to demonstrate how the differing theological positions that were summarized in the first article do not need to be held as mutually exclusive to one another. The following two points will demonstrate this thesis.
First, the theology of the antichrist should be compared to a seed that was first planted in the Old Testament scriptures that sprouted in the New Testament scriptures. This first point will reveal the Old Testament origins of the antichrist.
With the second point I will argue that all of the New Testament authors contextualized their language for their specific audiences. As a result, the theology of the antichrist looks more like reoccurring weeds in a garden, than it does one giant weed that already came in the past or will rise in the future. It is my contention that biblical scholars and theologians often hold positions on the antichrist that are far too narrow. Presenting a theology of the antichrist must account for all of the relevant descriptions provided by the New Testament authors, which is what I aim to do in the present article.
The Old Testament: The Seeds of Antichrist Theology
A New Testament theology of the antichrist is largely based upon seven New Testament books that more directly address the themes and descriptions of the antichrist. These books are:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
2 Thessalonians
1 John
2 John
Revelation
The specific term antichristos only appears fives times in both Old and New Testaments and all five of them are found in John’s first two letters.
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come…This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:18, 22)
“every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (1 John 4:3)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 1:7)
The other five books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation) contain sections that describe someone or something that seems to be very similar to “the antichrist.” In these pericopes, instead of using the term antichristos the following terms are utilized:
“But when you see the abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14; see also Matt. 24:15 and Luke 21:20)
“false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” (Mark 13:22)
“For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction” (2 Thess. 2:3-10)
“I saw a beast rising out of the sea” (Rev 13:1)
“I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names” (Rev 17:3)
With all these various terms it should be no wonder why a theology of the antichrist can be such a difficult concept to grasp. Additionally, these various terms beg the question as to whether or not these passages are all talking about the same person or idea.
The best response to this question is NO, they are not all writing about the exact same things, but they are writing about similar themes. Namely, the New Testament authors are writing about eschatological realties that are rooted in the book of Daniel.
The Specific Seeds Are in the Book of Daniel
Broadly speaking, the origins of the antichrist are found in the Old Testament scriptures, but the specific seeds of this theology are found in the book of Daniel.
For instance, in the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the phrase “when you see the abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14; cf. Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20) and this is a clear reference to the following passages in the book of Daniel.
“And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (Daniel 9:27)
“Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.” (Daniel 11:31–32)
“And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.” (Daniel 12:11)
Similarly, Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 writes the day of the Lord will not come until “the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.” It is likely that this phrase was influenced by Psalm 88:23 LXX (89:22), “the son of lawlessness shall not humble him” or Isaiah 57:3-4 LXX, “But as for you, come here, you sons of lawlessness…Are you not children of destruction, a lawless seed?”[1]
Even if we cannot be certain if Paul had all of these passages in his mind, I believe the Isaiah 57:2-4 reference needs to be seriously considered as an intertextual reference. If this is the case, then it would certainly help support my overall argument I am making, namely, antichrist theology is rooted in the Old Testament scriptures.
Nevertheless, even if the language in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not come from the Old Testament, the description in 2:4 most certainly does. In 2:4, Paul describes “the man of lawlessness” and “the son of destruction” as one…
“who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”
The first part of this description in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 comes from Daniel 11:36,
“He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods.”
Also, the second part of Paul’s description about “taking his seat in the temple of God” is generally understood as being associated with Antiochus Epiphanes, who set up an altar in the Jerusalem temple to the pagan god Zeus.
These profane actions of desecration relates back to Daniel 8:9-14; 9:26-27; 11:31, 45; 12:11. As Weima observes,
“Paul, therefore, employs a familiar theme to portray the evil character of the coming lawless one and his usurpation of God’s place in the world.”[2]
The reason why Weima says that this theme is familiar is because it is was prophesied in the book of Daniel. Many of the early Christians were familiar with Daniel and had access to the Old Testament scriptures in their synagogues.
But what about the actual term antichristos? As it was previously mentioned, 1 & 2 John are the only two places where antichristos is used in the New Testament. Is there any evidence that these explicit references to the antichrist are also rooted in the Old Testament or the book of Daniel?
In an essay on the use of the Old Testament in John and the Johannine Epistles D.A. Carson asserted,
“The most striking feature relevant to our subject in these epistles is the absence not only of Old Testament quotations but even of many unambiguous allusions to the Old Testament.”[3]
However, Carson later revised his view and cited G.K. Beale as the one who helped him see the use of “the last hour” in 1 John 2:18 goes back to Daniel’s use of “hour.”
“In private communication, G.K. Beale has suggested to me that this reference to “the last hour” may go back to Dan. 12:1-2. John’s evidence that it is the last hour is tied to the presence of many deceivers (“antichrists”) who anticipate the ultimate antichrist…This connection is almost certainly drawn from the teaching of the Lord Jesus, who announced that false christs and false prophets would arise, and this teaching has palpable links with Dan. 7:25; 8:12, 23-25; 11:30-34. In other words, Jesus is developing the prophecy of the latter-day deceiver from Daniel (Matthew 24 is saturated with allusions to Dan. 7-12 … If so, and if John is drawing his thought from that of Jesus, the link between John’s ‘last hour’ and Dan. 12:1-2 becomes plausible.”[4]
Throughout the entire Bible the phrase “last hour” is only used in 1 John 2:18. The rare appearances of both “antichrist” and “last hour” should probe all exegetes to consider how and why John is using these terms. Beale is one exegete who has already considered what John is doing in 2:18.
Beale’s argument is 1 John 2:18-23 is a development from Jesus’ and Paul’s predictions of an end-time opponent that are based on Daniel’s predictions. He reasons,
“the only eschatological uses of “hour” in all of the Old Testament occur in the ‘old’ Greek of Daniel 8; 11; 12. In every one of these occurrences ‘hour’ refers not generally to the eschaton but rather to the specific eschatological time when the opponent of God’s people will attempt to deceive them.”[5]
Beale provides five examples when the old Greek uses “the hour” (Daniel 8:7, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:1). On the basis of this connection he suggests John understands Daniel’s prophecy as already being fulfilled with the deception of the antichrists.[6]
If Carson and Beale are right, then this means all of the antichrist passages discussed in this article, thus far, have some connection to Daniel’s prophesy. The only New Testament passages remaining are those about the beasts in Revelation 13 and 17.
Yet, one of the few things most Revelation commentators agree upon is that the beasts described in Revelation 13 and 17 refer to the beasts in Daniel 7.[7]
One of the most thorough scholarly treatments of John’s use of Daniel is found in G.K. Beale’s The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John.[8] Since these observations of John’s use of Daniel 7 in Revelation 13 and 17 are not often debated, it is not necessary to rehash all those arguments here. By now the point should be clear enough, the book of Daniel is the seed. His writings are the source for the New Testament theology of the antichrist.
For the remainder of this article I will argue that the New Testament authors are not always writing about the same exact things, but they are writing about the same themes. In other words, the New Testament authors and the writings that have been discussed throughout this article are all slightly different based upon their context and audience.
Even with these differences it should be clear that they are referencing and applying Old Testament passages in general and Daniel’s prophecies in particular. This evidence also supports the answer provided to the question about the origins of antichrist theology. The seeds of the antichrist theology are found in the Old Testament Scriptures and these seeds start to sprout in the New Testament Scriptures.
The New Testament: The Sprouting of the Antichrist
When the New Testament authors wrote about their expectations of an eschatological opponent they used language appropriate to their setting. As a result, the antichrist throughout the New Testament looks more like reoccurring weeds in a garden, than it does one giant weed in the past or in the future.
As Peerbolte concluded in his thorough study of first and second century documents on these matters, “although there are some agreements between the various expectations, in general they encompass a variety of views.”[9]
In other words, the Old Testament prophecies created expectations of eschatological opposition and these expectations are being applied in various ways by the New Testament authors.
For example, when one reads Jesus’ words in Mark 13 or the discussions about the antichrist in 1 & 2 John it leads readers to think there are and will be many antichrists. In Mark 13:21-22, Jesus says,
“And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
It was noted earlier that both Beale and Carson believe John applied these words when he wrote,
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore 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 it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:18-19).
In comparison to Jesus and 1 & 2 John, Paul’s discussion in 1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 and John’s descriptions of the beasts in Revelation 13 and 17 make it seem like there is only one or, at the most, two eschatological opponents who will appear in the future.
Instead of trying to choose as if there were only two options, the best approach to these seemingly contradictory descriptions is to view them as complimentary to one another. As John explains in 1 John 2:18, the reason his readers can know that they are living in the eschatological “last hour” is because many antichrists have already come. It is worth noting, John assumes his audience knows what he is talking about, he states, “as you have heard” (1 John 2:18).
Presumably the reason why they knew about this eschatological opposition is because they were all familiar with the prophesies in the book of Daniel. Thus, when John applies the book of Daniel to the specific situation of people leaving Christ’s church in 1 John 2:19 (“they went out from us”), he calls them antichrists. He explains his rationale for this in 1 John 4:2-3.
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”
Again, in this passage the antichrist does not require a choice to be made between a past, present or future opponent. John believes the warnings they all heard about in Daniel are “now in the world already” (1 John 4:3).
Similar to so many other eschatological discussions in the New Testament, the theology of the antichrist is best understood in the already, but not yet framework. Already now, the spirit of the antichrist is in the world and leading people to oppose the work of God and the people of God. However, has not yet Christ returned to banish all of his opponents. Until that day there will be many more antichrists to come.
At the same time, it seems likely that there will be a single earthly leader, in the future, who will be empowered by Satan and will be led by the spirit of the antichrist. This single leader nicely fits the descriptions of “the lawless man” described in 2 Thessalonians 2.
It is also just as plausible to understand “the man of lawlessness” or “the beasts” in the book of Revelation as typological descriptions of reoccurring lawless men and reoccurring beasts. In his excellent commentary on the book of Revelation, G.K. Beale makes this point very well.
There has been debate since the earliest fathers about the identification of the Antichrist figure in ch. 13. Some saw an individual Antichrist to come at the last stage of world history… But others from the time of the NT itself have seen the Antichrist as an evil spirit repeatedly inspiring false teaching throughout the church age … The two interpretations are not incompatible. The context of Revelation and of the NT (especially 1–2 John) indicates that the Antichrist has manifested himself as a corporate spirit inspiring false teaching and persecution since the first century but will also manifest himself individually as the leader of opposition to God’s people at a future time before the end.[10]
Beale’s observation is one of the reasons why I previously stated that Lorein’s definition of the antichrist was lacking (see the previous article “Part 1: A Survey of the Recent Research.”)
Lorein defined the antichrist as “a man who will appear at the end of time,”[11] but this statement does not account for John’s language of multiple antichrists. He also defines the antichrist as someone who will appear at the end of time, but again this does not agree with John or Paul’s language of the presence of lawlessness or antichrists who are here already.
Lorein’s definition nicely illustrates the way scholars have offered definitions and descriptions of the antichrist that are far too narrow. Their focus is often only on the big giant weed in the garden instead of the many reoccurring weeds that are spread out all over the garden.
Holding this perspective on the antichrist also helps provide a solution to the debates previously mentioned about whether or not the antichrist will come from inside the church or from outside the church. If the primary focus is not on the one single eschatological opponent, but on the reoccurring appearance of many opponents, then the focus does not need to be on a choice between one of these two options. There will be both religious and political opposition. There has been and there will be opponents in the church who deny Christ. The spirit of the antichrist will deceive some in the church and that same spirit will lead tyrannical rulers to persecute Christians in various ways.
Although there is much more that can and should be said about the theology of the antichrist, the goals of this study have been accomplished. The aim of this article was to demonstrate how many of the theological positions about the origins and identity of the antichrist do not need to be held as mutually exclusive to one another.
After providing a summary of the history of research in part one, two points were provided in part two to support this thesis. The first point entered in to the debate about the origins of the antichrist theology. The answer given was that source for the New Testament theology of the antichrist came from the Old Testament scriptures in general and the book of Daniel in particular.
Then the second point weighed in on the discussions surrounding the identity of the antichrist. I argued that all of the New Testament authors applied the same themes from Daniel, but they did so in various ways and with contextualized language. This is the reason why the theology of the antichrist looks more like reoccurring weeds in a garden, than it does one giant weed that appeared in the past or might appear in the future. These conclusions led me to criticize some of the biblical scholars who offer positions or definitions of the antichrist that are too narrow. In sum, the present article attempted to incorporate and synthesize all the various perspectives regarding the antichrist by all of the New Testament authors.
[1] See Jefferey A. D. Weima, “1-2 Thessalonians,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 887.
[2] Ibid
[3] D. A. Carson, “John and the Johannine Epistles,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, ed. D. A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 256.
[4] D. A. Carson, “1-3 John,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1064.
[5] G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of the Last Hour in 1 John 2:18,” Biblica 92 (2011): 254.
[6] Contrary to Beale see Yarborough who identifies three different “hours” in John’s gospel and it the third “hour” that is the “last hour.” Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 142.
[7] See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 680-729. George Raymond Beasley-Murray, Revelation, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 206-221. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 487-509. David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, vol. 52b, The World Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 731-780.
[8] G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010). See especially pp. 229-248 for a detailed comparison of Revelation 13 and Daniel 7.
[9] Peerbolte, 1996, 344.
[10] Beale, 1999, 681.
[11] Lorein, 2003, 29.