(3) But the development of the Messianic hope in Judaism was a more determinative influence than either of those already mentioned. The Jewish Antichrist was very far from being a mere pre- cipitate of Babylonian mythology and Iranian eschatology. It was, above all, a counterpart of the Messianic idea, as that was derived from the prophets and evolved vmder the experiences of Jewish national history. Ezekiel's prophecy of the overthrow of Gog and Magog (Ezk 38) ; Zechariah's vision of the destruction of the de- stroyers of Jerusalem (Zee 14) ; above all, the repre- sentation in Daniel, with reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, of a world-power that waxed great even to the host of heaven (Dn S^"), and trod the sanctuary under foot (v. ^2), and stood up against the Prince of princes until it was finally ' broken without hand' (v.^) — all contributed to the idea of a great coming conflict with the powers of a godless world before the Divine Kingdom could be set up. And when, by a process of synthesis, the scattered elements of Messianic prophecy began to gather round the figure of a personal Messiah, a King who should represent Jahweh upon earth, it was natural that the various utter- ances of OT prophecy regarding an evil power which was hostile to God and His Kingdom and people should also be combined in the conception of a personal adversary. Fzekiel's frequent re- ferences to Gog (chs. 38, 39) would lend them- selves to this, and so would the picture in Daniel of the little horn magnifying itself even against the prince of the host (8'^). And the preoccupa- tion of the later Judaism with utterances like these, sharpened as it was by hatred of the heathen conquerors not merely as political enemies but as enemies of Jahweh and His Kingdom, would render all the easier that process of per- sonalizing an Antichrist over against the Christ which appears to have completed itself within the sphere of Judaism (cf. Apoc. Bar. 40, Asc. Is. 4^"i^).
2. Antichrist in the NT. — Deriving from Judaism, Christianity would naturally carry the Antichrist tradition with it as part of its inheritance. That it actually did so Bousset has sho-v^Ti by a com- prehensive treatment of the later Christian exe- getical and apologetic literature, which evidently rests on a tradition that is only partially dependent
68
AiVTICHRIST
A^^TiCHKLST
on the NT (op. cit. ; cf. EBi i. 180 ff.). But, so far as the NT is concerned, the earlier Antichrist tradition is taken over with important changes, due to the ilitierences between J udaisni and Cliristianity, and especially to the differences in their conception of the Messiah Himself. At the same time it must be noticed that nothing like a single consistent pre- sentation of the Antichrist idea is given by the NT as a whole. Elements of the conception appear in the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Apocalypse, and the Johannine Epistles; but in each group of writings it is treated differently and with more or less divergence from the earlier Jewish forms.
(1) In the Gospels. — In the Sj-noptic Gospels it is everywhere apparent that Jesus recognized the existence of a kingdom of evil under the control of a supreme personality, variously called the Devil (Mt 41 1339, etc.), Satan (Mt 4i« 12=6, l^ 10^8, etc.), or Beelzebub (I\It \2-'^^-\\), who sought to interfere with His own Messianic mission (4^'" 16^||), and wiiose works He had come to destroy (Mk 1^- ^* 311. 12. 15^ etc. ; cf. He 2'^% But from all the crude and materialistic elements of the earlier tradition His teaching is entirely free. In the reference to the 'abomination of desolation' standing in the holy place (:\It 24" ; cf. Mk 13", Lk 212"), which occurs in the great eschatological discourse, some critics have seen a parallel to 2 Th 2i"'- and an evident allusion to the Jewish Antichrist tradition ; but they do so on the presumption that the words were not spoken by Jesus Himself and are to be attributed to a redactor of the original source. If they were uttered by our Lord, it seems most pro- bable that they portended not any apocalypse of a personal Antichrist, but the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies — a calamity which He had already foreshadowed as coming upon the city because of its rejection of Himself (23*^^- )• For the adversaries of the Son of Man, the real representa- tives of the Antichrist spirit in His eyes, were the false Christs and false prophets by whom many should be deceived (245- -■^) — in other words, the champions of that worldly idea of the coming Kingdom which He had always rejected (Mt 4"^- 16-^, Jn 6^"), but to which the Jewish nation obstinately clung.
(2) In the Pauline Epistles. — A familiarity on the part of St. Paul with the Antichrist tradition is suggested when he asks in 2 Co 6", ' What con- cord hath Christ with Belial ? ' and when he speaks in Col 2" of Christ triumphing over 'the princi- palities and powers.' This familiarity becomes evident in 'the little apocalypse' of 2 Th 2'^-'^'^, where he introduces the figure of the 'man of sin,' or more correctly ' man of lawlessness.' Nestle has shown [ExpT xvi. [1904-5] 472) that the Beliar-Satan conception underlies this whole passage, with its thought of an opponent of Christ, or Antichrist, whom the Lord at last shall ' slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming' (v.*). But the distinctive character of this Pauline view of the Antichrist is that, while features in tiie picture are evidently taken from the description of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel (cf. v.* with Dn 7^ ll*'), the Antichrist is conceived of, not after the fashion of the later Judaism as a heathen ]iotentate and oppressor, but as a false Messiah from within the circle of Judaism itself, who is to work by means of false signs and lying wonders, and so to turn men's hearts away from that love of the truth which brings salvation (v,*). See, further, Man OF SiN.