24 - 1Jn 2:18
Παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί· καὶ, καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ὁ Ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν· ὅθεν γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν. This isthe general relation of the following versesto those which precede. They are closely attached to 1Jn 2:17. The exhortation to keep themselves unspotted from the world is all the more urgent, because the final decision and separation is immediately before the door. And this thought of the solemnity of the time, which makes it doubly necessaryμὴ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν κόσμον [“to not love the world”], moves the apostle with all the vehemence of his love to appeal to the churches; hence the repeated address,παιδία [“children”].
“It is the last hour.” What is it this expression would say? Ἐσχάτηὥρα [“last hour”] is not a phrase current in the New Testament, though with the same meaning we have ἔσχαταιἡμέραι [“last days”], Act 2:17; 2Ti 3:1[N]; Jas 5:3; or ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν [“the last days”], Heb 1:2[N]; Jud 1:18[N]; 2Pe 3:3, as well as καιρὸς ἔσχατος [“last time”], 1Pe 1:5.[N] These expressions correspond collectively to the Old Testament phrase, הַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”], as partly a comparison of the Septuagint, partly the quotation in Act 2:17, will show; but it is the expression ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν [“the last days”] which formally and most exactly answers to the Hebrew. The precise meaning which the phrase in question bears is very various, no doubt, when understood in concrete. Whilst in Gen 49:1-33 the taking possession of the promised land is indicated by the end of the days, the same expression in Mic 4:1-13 and Isa 2:1-22 points to the time of Christ’s first manifestation, and in 1Pe 1:5 it refers to eternity. This variety of interpretation must be explained by the fact that Holy Scripture everywhere knows only a dichotomy in this matter of times: the period of the introductory preparations of salvation and that of its consummation. The latter is in the Old Testament denoted by הַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”].
Now, every new period, every important event in the history of the kingdom ofGod, contains a new germ of final development, a marked progress towards the end. When the eye looks into the future, those new potencies in that future strike it first which are not yet contained in the present, and in consequence of which it believes that with the new periodthe final development will enter. If the predicted period has actually come, then to those who live in it the new elements, the germs of development, recedefurther into the future, and the imperfect and unaccomplished which still lingers in it assumes its worst form and in the clearest light. And hence the new period will come to be reckoned in with the first of the two halves of time, and theהַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”]will retire back into the futurity. Both views have accordingly their full justification. Every age, looked at from the past, belongs to the end; looked at from the present, it belongs to the beginning. The present has never an eye for the procedures and gradual growth of things in the time following; ithas no eye but for the unity of the future end. The manifoldness in this distant goal, which is to be unfolded in sequences of events, is hidden from its view. So Jacob beholds the possession of the holy land and the future of the Messiah in one great picture: to him both belong to the ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις [“last days”]. When the land was laid waste, the germ which was in that fulfilment receded further, and the development of the end passed into a later futurity. Thus the earlier prophet beheld deliverance from the captivity as one with the final deliverance through the Messiah; and though it was revealed to Daniel how long was the interval between these, the entire prophecy of the Old Testament, down to Malachi and even the time of Christ, nevertheless combined together in one vision the incarnation of God and the coming to judgment, the גָּדוֹלוְנוֹרָאיֹום [“great and terrible day”] of Mal 4:1-6 as the הַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”]. It must not seem strange, then, if, in harmony with all this, the New Testament pushes further back the ἔσχαταιἡμέραι [“last days”], and understands them of the second appearance of Christ. This is decisively the case in 1Pe 1:5, where the future glorification is assigned to the καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ [“last time”], where also the present epoch is reckoned as the first. But in the other New Testament places the idea of the ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν[“the last days”] appears to us to depart more widely from that of the Old Testament. That is to say, because in the Old Testament the entire eschatology, the immortality of the soul, and so forth, retired far back, so also did that of eternity, and of the endless development of the world. But the more clearly the ζωὴαἰώνιος [“eternal life”] was unfolded to Christians, the less adequate was to them the use of the phrase ἔσχαταιἡμέραι [“last days”], to express the infinite fulness of what was in their expectation; the endlessness of an eternal life would no longer be fitly described by the definition, “end of the times.” To this concurred also, that the view of the Old Testament, just indicated, to the effect that the הַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”] would come in with a mighty break in the passing away of heaven and earth, was brought forward both by the eschatological discourses of our Lord and the explanations of the apostles into the foreground; and that therefore it must have appeared far more befitting to describe the הַבָּאעוֹלָם, [“coming days” cf. Mal 4:1-6] as a new beginning, instead of the end, as was natural in the Old Testament. Hence, while the הַיָּמִיםאַחֲרִית [“these days”] in the Old Testament was equivalent to הַבָּאעוֹלָם, [“coming days”], it becomes in the New Testament, for the reasons assigned, a constituent element of the νῦναἰών [“present time”], and that as its last period, its last stage of development. In this way we can explain such passages as2Ti 3:1; 2Pe 3:3; Jud 1:18, easily and without violence. They speak of the stage of development which precedes the αἰώνμέλλων [“age about to come”]. But in our present passage and in Jas 5:3 there is this peculiarity, that the apostolical period itself—not any as yet future epoch—is described as the ἐσχάτηὥρα[“last hour”], or, what is substantially the same, as ἔσχαταιἡμέραι [“last days”]; and even Heb 1:2[N] seems to belong to the same category, where the ἔσχατοντῶνἡμερῶντούτων [“these last days”], that is, τοὺαἰῶνοςτούτου [“this age”], begins at once with the incarnation of Christ. This introduced the concluding epoch of the present world; when it runs out there does not enter a new epoch, but the αἰώνμέλλων [“age about to come”], the second great half of time, that of fulfilment; of all the stages that prepare for this, the present is regarded as the last. And in fact this view has been hitherto corroborated by experience: from the manifestation of Christ down to the present day there is running out a great epoch which will not reach its end but with the ἀποκατάστασις[LSJ]πάντων [“restoration of all things”]. But this does not exhaust the meaning of the expression in our passage. For when we consider carefully with what sedulity the apostle here makes prominent the end of the world as the motive of his exhortations, how he intensifies and sharpens the usual phrase ἔσχαταιἡμέραι [“last days”] into ἐσχάτηὥρα[“last hour”], we are at once penetrated by the feeling that he beholds this last preparatory fraction as hastening to its end, and the final catastrophe as impending,—in other words, that he, like St. Paul, as we well know, expected within brief limits the end of the world. Nor can we say that this was an error which he himself corrected in the composition of the Apocalypse, showing there as he does how much was to take place before the Lord’s return; for, notwithstanding these its contents, the book introduces the final and definitive utterance of Christ to this plain effect, ἔρχομαιταχύ [“I come quickly”]. Accordingly, we also must confront the much-agitated question, how an apostle, who had like St. John so deeply penetrated into the process of development of the kingdom of God, could nevertheless cling to such a view as this? For the solution of this difficulty it is necessary, before all things, not to lose sight of the fact that the Scripture has for the process of the times a standard of measurement different from ours: it measures them not by their length, but according to their weight and importance; not according to their external matter, but according to their internal meaning. Expressions like those now before us can be understood only when we interpret them according to the canon of 2Pe 3:8, μία ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη, καὶ χίλια ἔτη, ὡς ἡμέρα μία [“one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”]. But that tells us no other than this, that in the divine estimation one day may wrap up in itself a thousand human years, and the converse. Now if, with the Scripture, we measure time by its contents, it is clear that the essential meaning of no epoch has been so perfectly condensed into its beginning as that of the epoch in which we live, and which had its commencement with the manifestation of Christ. With the substance of the Gospels, the life of the Lord, and the outpouring of His Spirit, its essential and proper meaning and substance were already given. According to the adduced passage of the second Epistle of St. Peter, objective hindrances to the coming of the world’s end are no longer present; but through Christ’s appearance the world is already ripe for it. Only the ἀνοχή [“forbearance”] of God protracts the last hour, deferring it to a later and later period; and precisely because every moment has in it the possibility of the end, and only the long-suffering of God, unaccountable to every other, makes the finger of the dial go more slowly, no man knows in heaven or earth the day and the hour of the end. But if this be so, it is the true Christian and apostolical I wisdom to keep before our keen vision this possibility, we might even say this objective probability, of the judgment of the world. The end of all things will judge concerning the good as concerning the evil; both must therefore have found their full development. The former took place with Christ’s manifestation; but the latter also: the power of distinction had reached its climax in the τέκνοιςτῆςἀπειθείας [“children of disobediance”], as the rising up of the ἀντίχριστοι [“antichrists”] proved. This was to the apostle the sign of the approaching end; now was he assured that the axe was already laid at the root of the tree. Its development was quite complete: the fruits might indeed ripen more and more, but no new fruits would yet spring forth. Thus there may be, to speak with the Apocalypse, silence for half an hour, or, according to human measurement, of half an eternity: potentially the development is consummated; at any moment both Christ and Antichrist may appear, and the decisive stroke may follow the placing of the axe at the root of the tree. All peoples and individuals who have become Christians since the apostle wrote this, all the developments of the Christian church, are but the growth and ripening of germs then present, with nothing new superadded. Thus we have two things in the present verse, according to the explanation given: one is that we stand in the last period before the αἰώνμέλλων [“age about to come”]; and the other, that it is already advanced to the top of its development, and therefore hastens to its end. And both are true. As the token by which the readers may know the time, the antichrists are expressly mentioned. They had heard of the Antichrist as of a unity; but they may see the antichrists as a plurality. It is a question how these expressions are related to each other: whether ὁἀντίχριστος [“the antichrist”]; is an ideal combination of many antichrists which in concrete form will never show himself; or whether οἱἀντίχριστοι [“the antichrists”] are only the forerunners of that one whose near coming their appearance foreannounced. When we first of all examine what our own Epistle affords for the decision of this question, we see that the four passages which mention Antichrist (1Jn 2:18 and 1Jn 2:22, 1Jn 4:3, 2Jn 1:7) contain no irrefragable argument on the one side or the other. For if, first of all, in our passage the πολλοὶἀντίχριστοι [“many antichrists”], are supposed to furnish demonstration that the last hour was at hand or come, then, indeed, it is possible to argue that in them “the Antichrist,” the anti-Christian nature, had manifested itself, and that therefore there was no further individual to be expected who should exhibit personally the might of anti-Christianity. On the other hand, the apostle may have meant to say: “As we already see many antichrists in vigorous activity, we thereby discern that the scene is fully prepared for the appearance of the one personal Antichrist. In these he is foreshadowed and predicted; and we have therefore entered on the period of his manifestation, into the last hour.” In fact, not only are both interpretations possible, but there is literally nothing in this passage of ours which suggests anything for or against either distinctively. The same may be said of 1Jn 2:22. There the characteristic of Antichrist is declared to be the denial of the Father and of the Son; and it is evident that such a characteristic was manifested fully and clearly in those antichrists. But beyond this nothing is said as to whether or not all the rays of enmity against the kingdom of God may hereafter be concentrated and reflected from one individual: the words do not exclude the possibility; the necessity, however, they do not include. In 1Jn 4:3 Antichrist is described as the spirit of negation; there all pertain to Antichrist who deny the incarnate Son of God; and anti-Christianity is pre-eminently a principle. But neither does this passage absolutely shut out the possibility that one man, surpassing all the forms in which the anti-Christian element has been manifested, and summing up in himself the whole power of darkness, may hereafter appear,—that is, that the personal Antichrist may come. Finally, in2Jn 1:7 it is said that the denial of the incarnation is the token of the deceiver and of the Antichrist, having been just before said explicitly that many become guilty of that great sin of denial: hence it is clear that Antichrist primarily was understood to signify a principle, that of unbelief, and not an individual person. Wherever this principle exists, there is Antichrist, But is the thought thereby excluded, that this principle may hereafter be embodied in one person after such a manner that all earlier forms of manifestation shall be thrust into the background, so that this one individual might be designated ὁἀντίχριστος [“the antichrist”] in the same way as, for instance, Christ Himself was called ὁ προφήτης [“the prophet”]? Thus we may confidently assert that, on the ground of Johannaean passages alone, we should not be constrained to expect a personal Antichrist; but rather that the apostle, especially in the last two passages quoted above, understands, and would have us understand, by ὁἀντίχριστος [“the antichrist”] the personified anti-Christian principle working in all the variety of its individual manifestations. But should we have other reasons for assuming that such an individual person is to be looked for hereafter, there is certainly nothing in the passages written by St. John to contradict such an expectation: collectively, they allow the possibility of assuming, together with the preliminary reflections of the anti-Christian spirit, a yet future and final personal consummation of them all.
Further, there is an argument against the theory of a concentration of anti-Christianity in one person in the very diverse pictures which Scripture sketches of the final destination, and which on a first glance at least seem hardly compatible with a living individualization in one person. For, while in our Epistle anti-Christianity bears a theological character, resting upon a denial of the incarnation of God in Christ, and as such originating within the church itself (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον [“they went out from us”] 1Jn 2:19), in the Apocalypse it distinctly assumes a twofold physiognomy: one, that of the many-headed beast, that is, of the God-opposed power of the world, which is established in direct contradiction to Christianity; and the other, that of the beast like a lamb, which corresponds to pseudo-prophecy, and thus has some affinity with the anti-Christianity of our passage. While one of these beasts goes forth from the world, the other goes forth from the church. All this seems plainly to indicate two totally distinct forms of the corruption, which could hardly be combined in one person. But when we compare 2Th 2:1-17 the matter assumes another aspect. It is obvious that St. Paul borrowed the colours of his description from the prophet Daniel; and we must accordingly think of his man of sin as, according to the analogy of Daniel, a worldly potentate. It is equally plain that he speaks, on the other hand, of a great ἀποστασία [“apostasy”] out of which the son of perdition should emerge; and that leads at once to a corruption within the Christian church: the enemy sitteth in the temple of God, and as God exacts worship, which points at least in a pseudo-prophetic direction. The two diverse presentations of the beast in the Apocalypse are thus combined by St. Paul into one sole picture; and the Apocalypse itself gives us a hint how that comes to pass when it says, Rev 13:15, ἐδόθη αὐτῷ [“there was given to him”] (that is, to the beast representing pseudo-prophecy) δοῦναι πνεῦμα τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, ἵνα καὶ λαλήσῃ ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ θηρίου [“to give breath to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak”]. According to this, the hostile ungodly power of the world receives the spirit of pseudo-prophecy opposed to God; and it is not until then—that is, until both forms of opposition are united in one—that this enmity is raised to its highest form of activity. But again, 2Th 2:1-17 is so constructed that we can hardly escape the conviction that it speaks of an individual in whom the ἀποστασία [“apostasy”] should be consummated. To this all the expressions used by St. Paul point; in the other case the singular would not be constantly used as it is; but the real multiplicity lying at the base of it would somewhere appear, as it does, for instance, in St. John, who in fact has primarily a principle in view. With all this perfectly corresponds the fact, which the Scripture gives us to discern in the ways of God, that every principle is finally presented in its concentration in one person. As the “ideal righteous man” of the Old Testament is not a mere abstraction, finding its full realization only in the sum of all the individual righteous, but in Him whom our Epistle, 1Jn 2:1, terms δίκαιοςκατ᾽ἐξοχήν [“righteouspar excellence”] finds its concrete and full manifestation; as the יְהוָֹהעֶבֶד [“servant of the LORD”] is not only the type and ideal of a true servant of God, but has found its final concrete realization in Christ: so also the power of darkness will have its climax in a person who will fulfil all that has been predicted concerning Antichrist. We have felt it necessary briefly to indicate the true doctrine of Antichrist, because a new question attaches itself here to the subject. If, to wit, a personal Antichrist is yet to be expected, and if, moreover, St. John must have known this and would have it known, the reason must needs be assigned why he altogether keeps out of his Epistle this view of the case, and, after the single mention of ὁἀντίχριστος [“the antichrist”], which did not positively require it, yet at once occupies himself with the πολλοὶἀντίχριστοι [“many antichrists”] generally, with anti-Christianity as a principle. But the reason of this it is not hard to discover. That a personal Antichrist was to be expected, had its importance to Christianity at that time only so far as the end of all things was not immediately impending, this being proved by his appearance not having yet taken place. It is with this significance that St. Paul alludes to it, in order to obviate misconceptions as to the approaching and instant end of the world. But our apostle follows an altogether different line, having a different end in view: it is his purpose to show not the distance, but the nearness of the world’s consummation; and therefore he could not make prominent what was yet to take place, but must point out that all had taken place which was previously to take place. Hence he says nothing about the concentration of evil still in the future, but dwells on the fact that the antichrists already existing fore-announce that highest climax. Prominence given to Antichrist as one person might well have produced a relaxing effect: there is time enough to be in deep earnest about perfect holiness until we see him come. But the conclusion, that τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται [“the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” cf. 2Th 2:7], is a strong exhortation to the utmost possible holy earnestness. Now, as the apostle must, according to the design of this Epistle, have felt himself moved to give prominence to this latter aspect, so it is in harmony with his general habit, instead of placing the final consummation of the evil in contrast with its present imperfectness, rather to place in a strong light the germs of that consummation already appearing in the present. Thus we find it in his Gospel, and with specific reference to the final judgment. When our Lord, in Joh 5:25, says, ἔρχεται ὥρα, καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, ὅτε οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσονται τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσονται [“an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live”], He by no means refers only to the bodily raising of the dead which He accomplished during His life, but to the internal judgment which already takes place in virtue of His manifestation. So also when, in Joh 3:17 ff., He makes it emphatic that the unbeliever is not to be judged first when he stands before the bar, but that he is already because of his unbelief condemned. The apostle terms the great enemy of the Lord and His principle ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”]. Now it is certain that in the earlier classical Greek most compounds with ἀντί [“against”] signify not merely an opponent of the idea contained in the simple noun, but such an opponent as would fain make himself also what the simple noun means, and be so termed himself. Ἀντιβασιλέας[LSJ] [“rival king”] is not the enemy of a king, but a king who declares himself the enemy of another king; ἀντιπαλαιστής[LSJ] [“antagonist in wrestling”] is not the opponent of a wrestler, but a wrestler who contests the place of another wrestler. Accordingly, ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] would not be a mere enemy of Christ, but such an opponent as himself claims to take the place of Christ. Thus the term ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] would be an equivalent of the ψευδόχριστοι [“false christs”] of whom the Lord speaks in Mat 24:1-51; and it would be in strict accordance with this that in 2Th 2:1-17 the man of sin puts himself in the temple of God, that he might be worshipped in the place of God, or, as we should say here, in the place of Christ. But if this applies very well to the one personal Antichrist, it does not apply to the many antichrists of whom St. John here speaks. These, so far as we know, never made pretension to be honoured equally with Christ; nor does the mark of the anti-Christian spirit, which is laid down in 1Jn 2:22 and 1Jn 4:3, agree with it, for that was only the denial of Christ, and therefore enmity to His person. Now the usage above referred to does not hinder our taking ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] also in its wider meaning of an opponent of Christ; for that usage refers only to substantives, and there is no reason why ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] should not be taken as an adjective. Thus, as ἀντίθυρος[LSJ] [“opposite the door”] means that which is over against the door, so would ἀντίχριστος [“antichrist”] mean anti-Christian, that which is set in opposition to Christ. In precisely the same way is ἀντιβάρβαρος [“anti-barbarian”] constructed. That the name Antichrist occurs only in St. John has this ground, that this apostle regards him specifically as the opponent of Christ, as is seen in 1Jn 4:3; 2Jn 1:7, ἀρνούμενοςἸησοῦνΧριστὸνἐληλυθόταἐνσαρκί [“those who deny Jesus Christ has come in the flesh”], while St. Paul emphasizes his enmity against everything divine, and more general names, such as ἄνθρωποςτῆςἁμαρτίαςtn [“man of sin” cf. 2Th 2:3], suggested themselves more obviously to him. In fact, these are only diverse aspects of the same thing differently presented here and there. St. John’s description helps us, moreover, in the examination of the course of thought in our passage. In what preceded, the exhortation was to preserve themselves unspotted from the world as the general sum and substance of the spirit contrary to God; here, the apostle proceeds onward to a warning against the specific embodiment of the κόσμος [“world”] in anti-Christianity. The beast has become one with the pseudo-prophecy.
Concerning the coming of Antichrist,—and after what has been said, we must think here of the personal Antichrist,—the church had already heard. But from whom? It has been usual to refer at once to the passage in the Thessalonians so often quoted. But though it is not improbable that, at the time when St. John wrote, that Epistle had already found its way into Asia Minor, yet this allusion is rendered doubtful by the consideration that in such a case the apostle would have kept closer to the Pauline expression. Still less tolerable is the reference to Daniel; for the figure the prophet draws of the man of sin traces other features than those which here come into view. Thus we are led to assume that the words point to certain instructions given by St. John himself or by other teachers to the churches concerning the eschatological discourses of Christ, and especially those about the ψευδόχριστοι [“false christs”] and ψευδοπροφῆται [“false prophets”] in Mat 24:1-51. They had heard that Antichrist cometh; and by the previous words, ἐσχάτηὥραἐστίν [“it is the last hour”], as well as by the matter itself, it had been more closely defined that he would appear in the last age. At the same time, then, that they knew the coming of Antichrist, and indeed his coming ἐσχάτηὥρα [“last hour”], they also see καὶνῦν [“even now”] many antichrists: the καὶ [“even”] refers to the congruence of the then present time with the time for which the Antichrist was presented prominently to their view. And since there were so many of them already, this was all the more plain an indication that the last hour had actually struck; that the anti-Christian principle had already attained to its mighty energy. For the rest, we have probably in the words of the apostle a subtle indication of the fact that he did not in the πολλοὶςἀντίχριστοις [“many antichrists”] already contemplate the one Antichrist, but only the preparation for his appearance. If he had meant the former, he would have used some such words as ἠκούσατεὅτιὁ ἀντίχριστοςἔρχεται,νῦνδὲκαὶ πολλοὶἀντίχριστοιγεγόνασιν [“you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, but even now many antichrists have appeared”],—that is, in the many the prophecy was abundantly fulfilled—not one alone, but many had appeared. But inasmuch as he does not admit into his words this intensifying sense, he points to the idea that the many antichrists were not an intensification, but rather a diminution of the one Antichrist.
Textual note tnMost manuscripts, including A D F G Ψ Ï lat sy, read ἁμαρτίας [hamartias, “of sin”] in 2Th 2:3, but several important manuscripts, including א B 0278 6 81 1739 1881 al co, read ἀνομίας [anomias, “of lawlessness”]. This is why some English translations read “man of sin” while others read “man of lawlessness.” Regardless, this textual variant among the NT manuscripts does not affect the general meaning of the text.