OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp antichrist:

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:3 @{Let no man beguile you in any wise} (\m tis humas exapatsi kata mdena tropon\). First aorist active subjunctive of \exapata\ (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb \apata\) with double negative (\m tis, mdena\) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in strkjv@1Corinthians:16:11| rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in strkjv@Mark:13:15| (\m katabat\). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes "tricks" of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion. {For it will not be} (\hoti\). There is an ellipse here of \ouk estai\ (or \gensetai\) to be supplied after \hoti\. Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of verse 4|. The meaning is clear. \Hoti\ is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not "imminent," but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of verse 2|. {Except the falling away come first} (\ean m elthi h apostasia prton\). Negative condition of the third class, undetermined with prospect of determination and the aorist subjunctive. \Apostasia\ is the late form of \apostasis\ and is our word apostasy. Plutarch uses it of political revolt and it occurs in I Macc. strkjv@2:15 about Antiochus Epiphanes who was enforcing the apostasy from Judaism to Hellenism. In strkjv@Joshua:22:22| it occurs for rebellion against the Lord. It seems clear that the word here means a religious revolt and the use of the definite article (\h\) seems to mean that Paul had spoken to the Thessalonians about it. The only other New Testament use of the word is in strkjv@Acts:21:21| where it means apostasy from Moses. It is not clear whether Paul means revolt of the Jews from God, of Gentiles from God, of Christians from God, or of the apostasy that includes all classes within and without the body of Christians. But it is to be {first} (\prton\) before Christ comes again. Note this adverb when only two events are compared (cf. strkjv@Acts:1:1|). {And the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition} (\kai apokaluphthi ho anthrpos ts anomias, ho huios ts apleias\). First aorist passive subjunctive after \ean m\ and same condition as with \elthi\. The use of this verb \apokalupt\, like \apokalupsin\ of the second coming in strkjv@1:7|, seems to note the superhuman character (Milligan) of the event and the same verb is repeated in verses 6,8|. The implication is that {the man of sin} is hidden somewhere who will be suddenly manifested just as false apostles pose as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:13ff.|), whether the crowning event of the apostasy or another name for the same event. Lightfoot notes the parallel between the man of sin, of whom sin is the special characteristic (genitive case, a Hebraism for the lawless one in verse 8|) and Christ. Both Christ and the adversary of Christ are revealed, there is mystery about each, both make divine claims (verse 4|). He seems to be the Antichrist of strkjv@1John:2:18|. The terrible phrase, the son of perdition, is applied to Judas in strkjv@John:17:12| (like Judas doomed to perdition), but here to the lawless one (\ho anomos\, verse 8|), who is not Satan, but some one definite person who is doing the work of Satan. Note the definite article each time.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\ for result. Caius Caligula had made a desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language here. {Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:9 @{Whose coming is} (\hou estin h parousia\). Refers to \hon\ in verse 8|. The Antichrist has his \parousia\ also. Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, pp. 374, 378) notes an inscription at Epidaurus in which "Asclepius manifested his \Parousia\." Antiochus Epiphanes is called _the manifest god_ (III Macc. strkjv@5:35). Songs:the two Epiphanies coincide. {Lying wonders} (\terasin pseudous\). "In wonders of a lie." Note here the three words for the miracles of Christ (Hebrews:2:4|), power (\dunamis\), signs (\smeia\), wonders (\terata\), but all according to the working of Satan (\kata energeian tou Satana\, the energy of Satan) just as Jesus had foretold (Matthew:24:24|), wonders that would almost lead astray the very elect.

rwp@John:5:43 @{In my Father's name} (\en ti onomati tou patros mou\). Seven times Jesus in John speaks of the "Name" of the Father (5:43; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:28; strkjv@17:6,11,12,26|). See strkjv@1:12| for use of \onoma\ (Luke:1:49|). {And ye receive me not} (\kai ou lambanete me\). "And yet ye do not receive me," as in verse 40|, "the Gospel of the Rejection" (1:11; strkjv@3:11,32; strkjv@12:37|) often applied to the Fourth Gospel. {If another come} (\ean allos elthi\). Condition of third class (\ean\ and second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\). Note \allos\, not \heteros\, like \allon Isoun\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:4|. Similar prophecies occur in strkjv@Mark:13:6,22| (Matthew:24:5,24|), all general in character like Antichrist in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:8-12|. There is no occasion for a reference to any individual like Barcochba (about A.D. 134) as Pfleiderer and Schmiedel hold. These Messianic upstarts all come "in their own name" and always find a following. {Him ye will receive} (\ekeinon lmpsesthe\). "That one," whoever he is, as Jesus said. Future active indicative of \lamban\. Credulous about the false Messiahs, incredulous about Christ.

rwp@John:17:12 @{I kept} (\etroun\). Imperfect active of \tre\, "I continued to keep." {I guarded} (\ephulaxa\). First aorist (constative) active of \phulass\. Christ was the sentinel (\phulax\, strkjv@Acts:5:23|) for them. Is he our sentinel now? {But the son of perdition} (\ei m ho huios ts apleias\). The very phrase for antichrist (2Thessalonians:2:3|). Note play on \apleto\, perished (second aorist middle indicative of \apollumi\). It means the son marked by final loss, not annihilation, but meeting one's destiny (Acts:2:25|). A sad and terrible exception (Mark:14:21|). {The scripture} (\h graph\). It is not clear whether this is John's own comment or the word of Jesus. Not in strkjv@18:9|. The Scripture referred to is probably strkjv@Psalms:41:9| quoted in strkjv@13:18| with the same formula \hina plrthi\ which see there.

rwp@Revelation:7:4 @{The number of the sealed} (\ton arithmon tn esphragismenn\). Accusative case object of \kousa\ and genitive of the perfect passive articular participle of \sphragiz\. He did not see the sealing or count them himself, but only heard. {A hundred and forty and four thousand} (\hekaton tesserakonta tessares chiliades\). Symbolical, of course, and not meant to be a complete number of the sealed (or saved) even in that generation, let alone for all time. The number connotes perfection (Alford), 12x12x1000 = a hundred and forty-four thousands (\chiliades\, strkjv@5:11|). Nominative absolute, not agreeing in case either with \arithmon\ (accusative) or \esphragismenn\ (genitive). Songs:as to the case of \esphragismenoi\. {Out of every tribe of the children of Israel} (\ek pss phuls huin Isral\). There are two opposite views here, one taking the sealed as referring only to Jews (either actual Jews as a remnant or just Jewish Christians), the other including Gentiles as well as Jewish Christians, that is the true Israel as in strkjv@2:9; strkjv@3:9ff.| and like Paul in Galatians and Romans. This is the more probable view and it takes the twelve tribes in a spiritual sense. But in either view there remains the difficulty about names of the tribes. The list is not geographical, since Levi is included, but Dan is omitted and Manasseh put in his place, though he as the son of Joseph is included in Joseph. Irenaeus suggested that Antichrist was expected to come from the tribe of Dan and hence the omission here. There are various lists of the tribes in the O.T. (Genesis:35:22f.; strkjv@46:8ff.,49; strkjv@Exodus:1:1ff.; strkjv@Numbers:1:2; strkjv@13:4ff; strkjv@26:34; strkjv@Deuteronomy:27:11f.; strkjv@33:6ff.; strkjv@Joshua:13-22; strkjv@Judges:5; strkjv@1Chronicles:2-8; strkjv@12:24ff.; strkjv@27:16ff.; strkjv@Ezekiel:48|) and given in various orders. In strkjv@1Chronicles:7:12| both Dan and Zebulon are omitted. Joseph is given here in place of Ephraim. The distribution is equal (12,000) to each tribe.

rwp@Revelation:17:8 @{Was and is not} (\n kai ouk estin\). Imperfect and present of \eimi\, an apparent antithesis to \ho n kai ho n\ of strkjv@1:4|. This is a picture of the beast of strkjv@13:1ff.| which the woman is riding, but no longer just the empire, but one of the emperors who died (\ouk estin\, is not). {And is about to come up out of the abyss} (\kai mellei anabainein ek ts abussou\). That is, he is going to come to life again. {And to go into perdition} (\kai eis apleian hupagei\). Songs:(and he goes into perdition) the best MSS. read rather than the infinitive \hupagein\. Most interpreters see here an allusion to the "Nero _redivivus_" expectancy realized in Domitian, who was ruling when John wrote and who was called Nero _redivivus_. {Shall wonder} (\thaumasthsontai\). First future passive (deponent) of \thaumaz\, with which compare \ethaumasth\ in strkjv@13:3|. John had wondered (\ethaumasa\) in verse 6| "with the amazement of a horrible surprise; the world will wonder and admire" (Swete). {Whose name} (\hn onoma\). Singular \onoma\, like \ptma\ in strkjv@11:8|. See strkjv@13:8| for the same description of those who worship the beast and for discussion of details. {When they behold} (\blepontn\). Genitive plural of the present active participle of \blep\, agreeing with \hn\ (genitive relative) rather than with \hoi katoikountes\ (nominative just before \hn\). {How that} (\hoti\). "Namely that." {He was, and is not, and shall come} (\n kai ouk estin kai parestai\). Repetition of what is in verse 7| with \parestai\ (future of \pareimi\, from which \parousia\ comes) in place of \mellei\, "parody of the divine name" (Charles) in strkjv@1:4,8; strkjv@4:8|, "as the hellish antitype of Christ." The Neronic Antichrist has also a \parousia\.

rwp@Revelation:19:11 @{The heaven opened} (\ton ouranon neigmenon\). Perfect passive participle (triple reduplication) of \anoig\. Accusative case after \eidon\. Songs:Ezekiel (1:1|) begins his prophecy. See also the baptism of Jesus (Matthew:3:16; strkjv@Luke:3:21|, but \schizomenous\ in strkjv@Mark:1:10|). Jesus predicted the opened heavens to Nathanael (John:1:51|). In strkjv@Revelation:4:1| a door is opened in heaven, the sanctuary is opened (11:19; strkjv@15:5|), angels come out of heaven (10:1; strkjv@14:17; strkjv@18:1|), and sounds come from heaven (19:1|). {Behold, a white horse} (\idou hippos leukos\). Nominative case because of \idou\, not \eidon\. Cf. strkjv@6:2| for \hippos leukos\. The emblem of victory in both cases, but the riders are very different. Here it is the Messiah who is the Warrior, as is made plain by "Faithful and True" (\pistos kai althinos\), epithets already applied to Christ (1:5; strkjv@3:7,14|). Cf. also strkjv@22:6|. {In righteousness he doth judge and make war} (\en dikaiosuni krinei kai polemei\). See strkjv@Isaiah:11:3ff|. The Messiah is both Judge and Warrior, but he does both in righteousness (15:3; strkjv@16:5,7; strkjv@19:2|). He passes judgment on the beast (antichrist) and makes war on him. Satan had offered Christ a victory of compromise which was rejected.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ EMPEROR WORSHIP AS THE OCCASION FOR JOHN'S APOCALYPSE There is no doubt at all that the emperor cult (emperor worship) played a main part in the persecution of the Christians that was the occasion for this great Christian apocalypse. The book itself bears ample witness to this fact, if the two beasts refer to the Roman power as the agent of Satan. It is not possible to single out each individual emperor in the graphic picture. Most would take the dragon to be Satan and the first and the second beasts to be the imperial and provincial Roman power. The Roman emperors posed as gods and did the work of Satan. In particular there were two persecuting emperors (Nero and Domitian) who were responsible for many martyrs for Christ. But emperor worship began before Nero. Julius Caesar was worshipped in the provinces. Octavius was called Augustus (\Sebastos\, Reverend). The crazy Emperor Caius Caligula not simply claimed to be divine, but actually demanded that his statue be set up for worship in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem. He was killed in January A.D. 41 before he could execute his dire purpose. But the madcap Nero likewise demanded worship and blamed in A.D. 64 the burning of Rome on the Christians, though guilty of it himself. He set the style for persecuting Christians, which slumbered on and burst into flames again under Domitian, who had himself commonly termed _Dominus ac Deus noster_ (Our Lord and God). The worship of the emperor did not disturb the worshippers of other gods save the Jews and the Christians, and in particular the Christians were persecuted after the burning of Rome when they were distinguished from the Jews. Up till then Christians were regarded (as by Gallio in Corinth) as a variety of Jews and so entitled to tolerance as a _religio licita_, but they had no standing in law by themselves and their refusal to worship the emperor early gave offence, as Paul indicates in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3|. It was \Kurios Isous\ or \Kurios Kaisar\. On this very issue Polycarp lost his life. The emperors as a rule were tolerant about it, save Nero and Domitian, who was called Nero _redivivus_, or Nero back again. Trajan in his famous letter to Pliny advised tolerance except in stubborn cases, when the Christians had to be put to death. After Nero it was a crime to be a Christian and all sorts of slanders about them were circulated. We have seen already in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3ff.|, the man of sin who sets himself above God as the object of worship. We have seen also in strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@4:3; strkjv@2John:1:7| the term antichrist applied apparently to Gnostic heretics. One may wonder if, as Beckwith argues, in the Apocalypse the man of sin and the antichrist are united in the beast.