1 John 2:18-26

The Persons to be Avoided; Antichrists

18. Little children Or, Little ones. It is difficult to see anything in this section specially suitable to children: indeed the very reverse is rather the case. The same word (παιδία) is used here as in 1 John 2:14 and John 21:5. S. John's readers in general are addressed, irrespective of age. Both his Epistle and Gospel are written for adults and for well-instructed Christians.

it is the last time More literally, it is the last hour; possibly, but not probably, it is a last hour. The omission of the definite article is quite intelligible and not unusual: the idea is sufficiently definite without it, for there can be only one last hour. Similarly (Judges 18) we have - in (the) last timethere shall be mockers walking after their own ungodly lusts": and (Acts 1:8; Acts 13:47) - unto (the) uttermost partof the earth". A great deal has been written upon this text in order to avoid a very plain but unwelcome conclusion, that by the -last hour" S. John means the time immediately preceding the return of Christ to judge the world. Hundreds of years have passed away since S. John wrote these words, and the Lord is not yet come. Rather, therefore, than admit an interpretation which seemed to charge the Apostle with a serious error, commentators have suggested all kinds of explanations as substitutes for the obvious one. The following considerations place S. John's meaning beyond all reasonable doubt.

1. He has just been stating that the world is on the wane and that its dissolution has already begun. 2. He has just declared that the obedient Christian shall abide -unto the age" of Christ's kingdom of glory. 3. He goes on to give as a proof that it is the -last hour", that many Antichrists have already arisen; it being the common belief of Christians that Antichrist would immediately precede the return of Christ. 4. -The last day" is a phrase peculiar to S. John (John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24; John 12:48), and invariably means the end of the world, not the Christian dispensation. 5. Analogous phrases in other parts of N.T. point in the same direction: -In the last days grievous times shall come" (2 Timothy 3:1); -Ye are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5); -In the last days mockers shall come with mockery" (2 Peter 3:3). These and other passages shew that by -the last days", -last time", -last hour", and the like, Christian writers did not mean the whole time between the first and second coming of Christ, but only the concluding portion of it. 6. We find similar language with similar meaning in the sub-apostolic age. Thus Ignatius (Eph.XI.) writes; "These are the last times. Henceforth let us be reverent; let us fear the longsuffering of God, lest it turn into a judgment against us. For either let us fear the wrath which is to come, or let us love the grace which now is."

Of other interpretations of -the last hour" the most noteworthy are these. (1) The Christian dispensation, which we have every reason to believe is the last. This is the sense in which S. John's words are true; but this is plainly not his meaning. The appearance of Christ, not of Antichrist, proves that the Christian dispensation is come. (2) A very grievous time, tempora periculosa pessima et abjectissima. This is quite against usage whether in classical or N.T. Greek: comp. 2 Timothy 3:1. The classical phrase, -to suffer the last things", i.e. -to suffer extremities" (τὰ ἔσχατα παθεῖν), supplies no analogy: here the notion of -grievous" comes from the verb. (3) The eve of the destruction of Jerusalem. How could the appearance of Antichrist prove that this had arrived? And Jerusalem had perished at least a dozen years before the probable date of this Epistle. (4) The eve of S. John's own death. Antichrists could be no sign of that.

It is admitted even by some of those who reject the obvious interpretation that "the Apostles expected a speedy appearing or manifestation of Jesus as the Judge of their nation and of all nations" (Maurice): which is to admit the whole difficulty of the rejected explanation. Only gradually was the vision of the Apostles cleared to see the true nature of the spiritual kingdom which Christ had founded on earth and left in their charge. Even Pentecost did not at once give them perfect insight. Being under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they could not teach what was untrue: but, like the Prophets before them, they sometimes uttered words which were true in a sense far higher than that which was present to their own minds. In this higher sense S. John's words here are true. Like others, he was wrong in supposing -that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear" (Luke 19:11), for -it was not for them to know times or seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority" (Acts 1:7). He was right in declaring that, the Messiah having come, it was the -last hour". No event in the world's history can ever equal the coming of Christ until He comes again. The epoch of Christianity, therefore, is rightly called the -last hour", although it has lasted nearly two thousand years. What is that compared with the many thousands of years since the creation of man, and the limitless geological periods which preceded the creation of man? What again in the eyes of Him in whose sight -a thousand years are but yesterday?"

"It may be remarked that the only point on which we can certainly say that the Apostles were in error, and led others into error, is in their expectation of the immediate coming of Christ; and this is the very point which our Saviour says (Mark 13:32) is known only to the Father" (Jelf).

as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come Better, even as ye heard that Antichrist cometh: the first verb is aorist, not perfect; the second present, not future; and the conjunction is of the same strong form as in 1 John 2:6. This seems to be a case in which the aorist should be retained in English (see on 1 John 2:11). As in 1 John 2:7, the reference is probably to a definite point in their instruction in the faith: and -cometh" should be retained in order to bring out the analogy between the Christ and the Antichrist. The one was hoped for, and the other dreaded, with equal certainty; and hence each might be spoken of as -He that cometh". -Art Thou He that cometh?" (Matthew 11:3; Luke 19:20). Comp. Mark 8:38; Mark 11:9; John 4:25; John 6:14; John 11:27, &c. &c. And as to the coming of Antichrists the N. T. seems to be as explicit as the O. T. with regard to the coming of Christ. -Many shall come in My name, saying I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray … There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible even the elect" (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:24). Comp. Mark 13:22-23; Acts 20:29; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 2:1; and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which like the passage before us seems to point to one distinct person or power as the one Antichrist, whose spirit animates all antichristian teachers.

The term -Antichrist" in Scripture occurs only in the First and Second Epistles of S. John (1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). The earliest instance of its use outside Scripture is in S. Polycarp (Ep. ad Phil, VII.), in a passage which shews that this disciple of S. John (a.d. 140 155) knew our Epistle: see on 1 John 4:3. The term does not mean merely a mock Christ or false Christ, for which the N.T. term is -pseudo-Christ" (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22). Nor does it mean simply an opponent of Christ, for which we should probably have -enemy of Christ", like -enemy of the Cross of Christ" (Philippians 3:18) and -enemy of God" (James 4:4). But it includes boththese ideas of counterfeiting and opposing; it means an opposition Christ or rival Christ; just as we call a rival Pope an -antipope". The Antichrist is, therefore, a usurper, who under false pretences assumes a position which does not belong to him, and who opposesthe rightful owner. The idea of opposition is the predominant one.

It is not easy to determine whether the Antichrist of S. John is personal or not. But the discussion of this question is too long for a note: see Appendix B.

even now are there many Antichrists Better, as R.V., even now have there arisen many Antichrists: the Christ wasfrom all eternity (1 John 1:1), the Antichrist and his company arosein time; they are come into being. We have a similar contrast in the Gospel: -In the beginning wasthe Word"; but -There arosea man, sent from God, whose name was John" (John 1:1; John 1:6). These -many Antichrists" are probably to be regarded as at once forerunners of the Antichrist and evidence that his spirit is already at work in the world: the one fact shews that he is not far distant, the other that in a sense he is already here. In either case we have proof that the return of Christ, which is to be heralded by the appearance of Antichrist, is near.

whereby we know that it is the last time Or, whence we come to know that it is the last hour: as in 1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:5the verb indicates acquisition of and progress in knowledge. -Whence" in the sense of -from which data, from which premises" hardly occurs elsewhere in N.T. except perhaps in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1 John 2:17; John 7:25; John 8:3), where the same Greek word (ὅθεν) is uniformly rendered -wherefore" in both A.V. and R.V.

It is difficult to see what S. John could have meant by this, if by the -last hour" he understood the Christian dispensation as a whole and not the concluding portion of it (comp. 2 Timothy 3:1). The multitude of false teachers who were spreading the great lie (1 John 2:22) that Jesus is not the Christ, were evidence, not of the existence of Christianity, but of antichristianity. Nor could evidence of the former be needed by S. John's readers. They did not need to be convinced either that the Gospel dispensation had begun, or that it was the last in the history of the Divine Revelation. The Montanist theory that a further dispensation of the Spirit, distinct from that of the Son, was to follow and supersede the Gospel, as the Gospel had superseded Judaism, the dispensation of the Father, was a belief of later growth. (For an account of this theory as elaborated by Joachim of Flora [fl. a.d. 1180 90] see Döllinger's Prophecies and the Prophetic Spirit in the Christian Era, pp. 114 119.) In the Apostolic age the tendency was all the other way; to believe that the period since the coming of Christ was not only the last in the world's history, but would be very brief. It was thought that some of the generation then existing might live to see the end (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

B. Antichrist

In the notes on 1 John 2:18 it has been pointed out that the term -Antichrist" is in N. T. peculiar to the Epistles of S. John (1Jn 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), and that in meaning it seems to combine the ideas of a mock Christ and an opponent of Christ, but that the latter idea is the prominent one. The false claims of a rival Christ are more or less included in the signification; but the predominant notion is that of hostility.

It remains to say something on two other points of interest. I. Is the Antichrist of S. John a person or a tendency, an individual man or a principle? II. Is the Antichrist of S. John identical with the great adversary spoken of by S. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? The answer to the one question will to a certain extent depend upon the answer to the other.

I. It will be observed that S. John introduces the term -Antichrist," as he introduces the term -Logos" (1 John 1:1; John 1:1), without any explanation. He expressly states that it is one with which his readers are familiar; -even as ye heard that Antichrist cometh." Certainly this, the first introduction of the name, looks like an allusion to a person. All the more so when we remember that the Christ was -He that cometh" (Matthew 11:3; Luke 19:20). Both Christ and Antichrist had been the subject of prophecy, and therefore each might be spoken of as -He that cometh." But it is by no means conclusive. We may understand -Antichrist" to mean an impersonal power, or principle, or tendency, exhibiting itself in the words and conduct of individuals, without doing violence to the passage. In the one case the -many antichrists" will be forerunners of the great personal opponent; in the other the antichristian spirit which they exhibit may be regarded as Antichrist. But the balance of probability seems to be in favour of the view that the Antichrist, of which S. John's readers had heard as certain to come shortly before the end of the world, is a person.

Such is not the case with the other three passages in which the term occurs. -Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). There were many who denied that Jesus is the Christ and thereby denied not only the Son but the Father of whom the Son is the revelation and representative. Therefore once more we have many antichrists, each one of whom may be spoken of as -the Antichrist," inasmuch as he exhibits the antichristian characteristics. No doubt this does not exclude the idea of a person who should have these characteristics in the highest possible degree, and who had not yet appeared. But this passage taken by itselfwould hardly suggest such a person.

So also with the third passage in the First Epistle. -Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the (spirit) of the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now is in the world already" (1 John 4:3). Here it is no longer -the Antichrist" that is spoken of, but -the spirit of the Antichrist." This is evidently a principle; which again does not exclude, though it would not necessarily suggest or imply, the idea of a person who would embody this antichristian spirit of denial.

The passage in the Second Epistle is similar to the second passage in the First Epistle. -Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist" (1 John 2:7). Here again we have many who exhibit the characteristics of Antichrist. Each one of them, and also the spirit which animates them, may be spoken of as -the Antichrist;" the further idea of an individual who shall exhibit this spirit in an extraordinary manner being neither necessarily excluded, nor necessarily implied.

The first of the four passages, therefore, will have to interpret the other three. And as the interpretation of that passage cannot be determined beyond dispute, we must be content to admit that the question as to whether the Antichrist of S. John is personal or not cannot be answered with certainty. The probability seems to be in favour of an affirmative answer. In the passage which introducesthe subject (1 John 2:18) the Antichrist, of which the Apostle's little children had heard as coming, appears to be a person of whom the -many antichrists" with their lying doctrine are the heralds and already existing representatives. And it may well be that, having introduced the term with the personal signification familiar to his readers, the Apostle goes on to make other uses of it; in order to warn them that, although the personal Antichrist has not yet come, yet his spirit and doctrine are already at work in the world.

Nevertheless, we must allow that, if we confine our attention to the passages of S. John in which the term occurs, the balance in favour of the view that he looked to the coming of a personal Antichrist is far from conclusive. This balance, however, whatever its amount, is considerably augmented when we take a wider range and consider (a) The origin of the doctrine which the Apostle says that his readers had already heard respecting Antichrist; (b) The treatment of the question by those who followed S. John as teachers in the Church; (c) Other passages in the N. T. which seem to bear upon the question. The discussion of this third point is placed last because it involves the second question to be investigated in this Appendix; Is the Antichrist of S. John identical with S. Paul's -man of sin."

(a) There can be little doubt that the originof the primitive doctrine respecting Antichrist is the Book of Daniel, to which our Lord Himself had drawn attention in speaking of the -abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:11). The causing the daily sacrifice to cease, which was one great element of this desolation, at once brings these passages into connexion with the -little horn" of Daniel 8:9-14, the language respecting which seems almost necessarily to imply an individual potentate. The prophecies respecting the -king of fierce countenance" (John 8:23-25) and -the king" who -shall do according to his will" (John 11:36-39) strongly confirm this view. And just as it has been in individuals that Christians have seen realisations, or at least types, of Antichrist (Nero, Julian, Mahomet), so it was in an individual (Antiochus Epiphanes) that the Jews believed that they saw such. It is by no means improbable that S. John himself considered Nero to be a type, indeed the great type, of Antichrist. When Nero perished so miserably and obscurely in a.d. 68, Romans and Christians alike believed that he had only disappeared for a time. Like the Emperor Frederick II. in Germany, and Sebastian -the Regretted" in Portugal, this last representative of the Caesars was supposed to be still alive in mysterious retirement: some day he would return. Among Christians this belief took the form that Nero was to come again as the Antichrist (Suet. Nero40, 56; Tac. Hist.ii. 8). All this will incline us to believe that the Antichrist, of whose future coming S. John's -little children" had heard, was not a mere principle, but a person.

(b) "That Antichrist is one individual man, not a power, not a mere ethical spirit, or a political system, not a dynasty, or a succession of rulers, was the universal tradition of the early Church." This strong statement seems to need a small amount of qualification. The Alexandrian School is not fond of the subject. "Clement makes no mention of the Antichrist at all; Origen, after his fashion, passes into the region of generalizing allegory. The Antichrist, the -adversary," is -false doctrine;" the temple of God in which he sits and exalts himself, is the written Word; men are to flee, when he comes, to -the mountains of truth" (Hom. xxix. in Matt.). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. xi. c. Eunom.) follows in the same track." Still the general tendency is all the other way. Justin Martyr (TryphoXXXII.) says "He whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High." He speaks of him as -the man of sin." Irenaeus (v. xxv. 1, 3), Tertullian (De Res. Carn.XXIV., XXV.), Lactantius (Div. Inst.vii. xvii.), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech.XV. 4, n, 14, 17), and others take a similar view, some of them enlarging much upon the subject. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xx. xix.) says "Satan shall be loosed, and by means of that Antichrist shall work with all power in a lying but wonderful manner." Jerome affirms that Antichrist "is one man, in whom Satan shall dwell bodily;" and Theodoret that "the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, will make every effort for the seduction of the pious, by false miracles, and by force, and by persecution." From these and many more passages that might be cited it is quite clear that the Church of the first three or four centuries almost universally regarded Antichrist as an individual. The evidence, beginning with Justin Martyr in the sub-Apostolic age, warrants us in believing that in this stream of testimony we have a belief which prevailed in the time of the Apostles and was possibly shared by them. But as regards this last point it is worth remarking how reserved the Apostles seem to have been with regard to the interpretation of prophecy. "What the Apostles disclosed concerning the future was for the most part disclosed by them in private, to individuals not committed to writing, not intended for the edifying of the body of Christ, and was soon lost" (J. H. Newman).

(c) Besides the various passages in N.T. which point to the coming of false Christs and false prophets (Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22-23; Acts 20:29; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 2:1), there are two passages which give a detailed description of a great power, hostile to God and His people, which is to arise hereafter and have great success; Revelation 13 and 2 Thessalonians 2. The second of these passages will be considered in the discussion of the second question. With regard to the first this much may be asserted with something like certainty, that the correspondence between the -beast" of Revelation 13 and the -little horn" of Daniel 7 is too close to be accidental. But in consideration of the difficulty of the subject and the great diversity of opinion it would be rash to affirm positively that the -beast" of the Apocalypse is a person. The correspondence between the -beast" and the -little horn" is not so close as to compel us to interpret both images alike. The wiser plan will be to leave Revelation 13 out of consideration as neutral, for we cannot be at all sure whether the beast (1) is a person, (2) is identical with Antichrist. We shall find that 2 Thessalonians 2 favours the belief that Antichrist is an individual.

II. There is a strong preponderance of opinion in favour of the view that the Antichrist of S. John is the same as the great adversary of S. Paul(2 Thessalonians 2:3). 1. Even in the name there is some similarity; the Antichrist (ὁ ἀντίχριστος) and -he that opposeth" (ὁ ἀντικείμενος). And the idea of being a rival Christ which is included in the name Antichrist and is wanting in -he that opposeth," is supplied in S. Paul's description of the great opponent: for he is a - man", and he -setteth himself forth as God." 2. Both Apostles state that their readers had previously been instructed about this future adversary. 3. Both declare that his coming is preceded by an apostasy of many nominal Christians. 4. Both connect his coming with the Second Advent of Christ. 5. Both describe him as a liar and deceiver. 6. S. Paul says that this -man of sin exalteth himself against all that is called God." S. John places the spirit of Antichrist as the opposite of the Spirit of God. 7. S. Paul states that his -coming is according to the working of Satan." S. John implies that he is of the evil one. 8. Both Apostles state that, although this great opponent of the truth is still to come, yet his spirit is already at work in the world. With agreement in so many and such important details before us, we can hardly be mistaken in affirming that the two Apostles in their accounts of the trouble in store for the Church have one and the same meaning.

Having answered, therefore, this second question in the affirmative we return to the first question with a substantial addition to the evidence. It would be most unnatural to understand S. Paul's -man of sin" as an impersonal principle; and the widely different interpretations of the passage for the most part agree in this, that the great adversary is an individual. If, therefore, S. John has the same meaning as S. Paul, then the Antichrist of S. John is an individual.

To sum up: Although none of the four passages in S. John's Epistles are conclusive, yet the first of them (1 John 2:18) inclines us to regard Antichrist as a person. This view is confirmed (a) by earlier Jewish ideas on the subject, (b) by subsequent Christian ideas from the sub-Apostolic age onwards, (c) above all by S. Paul's description of the -man of sin," whose similarity to S. John's Antichrist is of a very close and remarkable kind.

For further information on this difficult subject see the articles on Antichrist in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible(Appendix), and Dictionary of Christian Biography, with the authorities there quoted; also four lectures on The Patristical Idea of Antichristin J. H. Newman's Discussions and Arguments.