THE PAROUSIA IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST.
JOHN
Commentators
are much divided on the questions, When, where, by whom, and to whom, this
epistle was written. There is no evidence on the subject except that which may
be found in the epistle itself, and this gives ample scope for difference in
opinion. Lange, who doubts the authenticity of the epistle, says that it ‘has
quite the air of having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem;’ and
Lücke, who maintains its authenticity, is also of the opinion ‘that it may gave
been written shortly before that event.’ We think any candid mind will
be satisfied, after a careful study of the internal evidence, first, that the
epistle is a genuine production of St. John; and, secondly, that it was written
on the very eve of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is impossible to overlook
the fact, which everywhere meets us in the epistle, that the writer believes
himself on the verge of a solemn crisis, for the arrival of which he urges his
readers to be prepared. This is in harmony with all the apostolic epistles, and
proves incontestably that their authors all alike shared in the belief of the
near approach of the great consummation.
THE WORLD PASSING AWAY: THE LAST HOUR COME.
1 John
ii. 17, 18.---‘And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof. . . . Little
children, it is the last time’ [hour].
We
have frequently in the course of this investigation had occasion to remark how
the New Testament writers speak of ‘the end’ as fast approaching. We
have also seen what that expression refers to. Not to the close of human
history, nor the final dissolution of the material creation; but the close of
the Jewish aeon or dispensation, and the abolition and removal of the order of
things instituted and ordained by divine wisdom under that economy. This great
consummation is often spoken of in language which might seem to imply the total
destruction of the visible creation. Notably this is the case in the Second
Epistle of St. Peter; and the same might also be said of our Lord’s prophetic
language in Matt. xxiv. 24.
We
find the same symbolic form of speech in the passage now before us: ‘the world
passeth away’ [o
kosmoz paragetai]. To
the apprehension of the apostle it was already ‘passing away;’ the very
expression used by St. Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 31, with reference to the same event
[paragei gar to schma
tou kosmou toutou] ‘the
fashion of this world is passing away.’
The
impression of the Apostle John of the nearness of ‘the end’ seems, if possible,
more vivid than of the other apostles. Perhaps when he wrote he stood still
nearer to the crisis than they. In this view it is worthy of notice that there
is a marked gradation in the language of the different epistles. The last times
become the last days, and now the last days become the last hour
[escath wra esti]. The period of expectation and
delay was now over, and the decisive moment was at hand.
THE ANTICHRIST COME, A PROOF OF ITS BEING THE
LAST HOUR.
1 John ii. 18.---‘And as ye have heard that [the] antichrist
cometh, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last
hour’ [wra].
In
this passage for the first time ‘the dreaded name’ of antichrist rises
before us. This fact of itself is sufficient to prove the comparatively late
date of the epistle. That which appears in the epistles of St. Paul as a
shadowy abstraction has now taken a concrete shape, and appears embodied as a
person,---‘the antichrist.’
It
is certainly remarkable, considering the place which this name has filled in
theological and ecclesiastical literature, how very small a space it occupies
in the New Testament. Except in the epistles of St. John, the name antichrist
never occurs in the apostolic writings. But though the name is absent,
the thing is not unknown. St. John evidently speaks of ‘the antichrist’
as an idea familiar to his readers,---a power whose coming was anticipated, and
whose presence was an indication that ‘the last hour’ had come. ‘Ye have heard
that the antichrist cometh; even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last hour.’
We
expect, then, to find traces of this expectation---predictions of the coming
antichrist---in other parts of the New Testament. And we are not disappointed.
It is natural to look, in the first place, to our Lord’s eschatological
discourse on the Mount of Olives for some intimation of this coming danger and
the time of its appearance. We find notices in that discourse of ‘false christs
and false prophets’ (Matt. xxiv. 5, 11, 24), and we are ready to conclude that
these must mean the same evil power designated by St. John the antichrist. The
resemblance of the name favours this supposition; and the period of their
appearance,---on the eve of the final catastrophe, seems to increase the
probability almost to certainty.
There
is, however, a formidable objection to this conclusion, viz. that the false
christs and false prophets alluded to by our Lord seem to be mere Jewish
impostors, trading on the credulity of their ignorant dupes, or fanatical
enthusiasts, the spawn of that hot-bed of religious and political frenzy which
Jerusalem became in here last days. We find the actual men vividly portrayed in
the passages of Josephus, and we cannot recognise in them the features of the
antichrist as drawn by St. John. They were the product of Judaism in its
corruption, and not of Christianity. But the antichrist of St. John is
manifestly of Christian origin. This is certain from the testimony of the
apostle himself: ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us,’ etc. (ver.
19). This proves that the antichristian opponents of the Gospel must at some
time have made a profession of Christianity, and afterwards have become
apostates from the faith.
It
cannot indeed be said to be impossible that the false christs and false
prophets of the last days of Jerusalem could have been apostates from
Christianity; but there is no evidence to show this either in the prophecy of
our Lord or in the history of the time.
On
the other hand, in the apostolic notices of the predicted apostasy this feature
of its origin is distinctly marked. We have already seen how St. Paul, St.
Peter, and St. John all agree in their description of ‘the falling away’ of the
last days. (See Conspectus of passages relating to the Apostasy, p. 251). Nor
can there be any reasonable doubt that the apostates of the two former
apostles are identical with the antichrist of the last. They are alike
in character, in origin, and in the time of their appearing. They are the
bitter enemies of the Gospel; they are apostates from the faith; they belong to
the last days. These are marks of identity too numerous and striking to be
accidental; and we are therefore justified in concluding that the antichrist of
St. John is identical with the apostasy predicted by St. Paul and St. Peter.
ANTICHRIST NOT A PERSON, BUT A
PRINCIPLE.
1 John
ii. 18.---‘Even now are there many antichrists.’
In
the opinion of some commentators the name ‘the antichrist’ is supposed to
designate a particular individual, the incarnation and embodiment of enmity to
the Lord Jesus Christ; and as no such person has hitherto appeared in history,
they have concluded that his manifestation is still future, but that the
personal antichrist may be expected immediately before the ‘end of the world.’
This seems to have been the opinion of Dr. Alford, who says:---
‘According to this view we still look for the man of sin, in
the fulness of the prophetic sense, to appear, and that immediately before the
coming of the Lord.’
There
is here, however, a strange confounding of things which are entirely
different,---‘the man of sin’ and ‘the apostasy;’ the former undoubtedly a person,
as we have already seen; the latter a principle, or heresy, manifesting
itself in a multitude of persons. It is impossible, with this declaration of
St. John before us,---‘Even now are there many antichrists,’---to regard
the antichrist as a single individual. It is true that in every individual who
held the antichristian error, antichrist might be said to be personified; but
this is a very different thing from saying that the error is incarnate and embodied
in one particular persona as its head and representative. The expression ‘many
antichrists’ proves that the name is not the exclusive designation of any
individual.
But
the most common and popular interpretation is that which makes the name antichrist
refer to the Papacy. From the time of the Reformation this has been the
favourite hypothesis of Protestant commentators; nor is it difficult to
understand why it should have been so. There is a strong family likeness among
all systems of superstition and corrupt religion; and no doubt much of the
Papal system may be designated antichristian; but it is a very different thing
to say that the antichrist of St. John is intended to describe the pope or the
Papal system. Alford decidedly rejects this hypothesis:---
‘It cannot be disguised,’ he remarks, in treating of this
very point, ‘that in several important particulars the prophetic requirements
are very far from being fulfilled. I will only mention two,---one subjective,
the other objective. In the characteristic of 2 Thess. ii. 4 ("who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God," etc.) the
pope does not, and never did, fulfil the prophecy. Allowing all the striking
coincidences with the latter part of the verse which have been so abundantly
adduced, it never can be shown that he fulfils the former part---nay, so far is
he from it, that the abject adoration of and submission to
legomenoi qeoi and
sebasmata (all that is called God and that is worshipped) has ever
been one of his most notable peculiarities. The second objection, of an
external and historical character, is even more decisive. If the Papacy be
antichrist, then has the manifestation been made, and endured now for nearly
1500 years, and yet that day of the Lord is not come which, by the terms of our
prophecy, such manifestation is immediately to precede.
But
the language of the apostle himself is decisive against such an application of
the name antichrist. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how such an
interpretation could have taken root in the face of his own express
declarations. The antichrist of St. John is not a person, nor a succession
of persons, but a doctrine, or heresy, clearly noted and
described. More than this, it is declared to be already existing and
manifested in the apostle’s own days: ‘Even NOW are there many
antichrists;’ ‘this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the world’ (1 John
vi. 18; iv. 3). This ought to be decisive for all who bow to the authority of
the Word of God. The hypothesis of an antichrist embodied in an individual
still to come has not basis in Scripture; it is a fiction of the imagination,
and not a doctrine of the Word of God.
MARKS OF THE ANTICHRIST.
1 John ii. 19.---‘They went out from us, but they were not
of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us;
but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of
us.’
1 John ii. 22.---‘Who is a [the] liar but he that denieth that
Jesus is the Christ? He is [the] antichrist, that denieth the Father and the
Son.’
1 John iv. 1.---‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try
the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out
into the world.’
1 John iv. 3.---‘Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of
antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come: and even now already is
it in the world.’
2 John, ver. 7.---‘Many deceivers are entered into the
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is [the]
deceiver and [the] antichrist.’
Here
we may be said to have a full-length portrait of the antichrist, or, as we
should rather say, the antichristian heresy or apostasy. From this description
it distinctly appears,---
- That the antichrist was not an
individual, or a person, but a principle, or heresy, manifesting itself in
many individuals.
- That the antichrist or
antichrists were apostates from the faith of Christ (ver. 19).
- That their characteristic error
consisted in the denial of the Messiahship, the divinity, and incarnation
of the Son of God.
- That the antichristian
apostates described by St. John may possibly be the same as those
denominated by our Lord 'false christs and false prophets’ (Matt. xxiv. 5,
11, 24), but certainly answer to those alluded to by St. Paul, St. Peter,
and St. Jude.
- All the allusions to the
antichristian apostasy connect its appearance with the ‘Parousia,’ and
with ‘the last days’ or close of the aeon or Jewish dispensation. That is
to say, it is regarded as near, and almost already present.
Doubtless,
if we possessed fuller historical information concerning that period we should
be better able to verify the predictions and allusions which we find in the New
Testament; but we have quite enough of evidence to justify the conclusion that
all came to pass according to the Scriptures. Whether the false prophets spoken
of by Josephus as infesting the last agonies of the Jewish commonwealth are
identical with the false prophets of our Lord’s prediction and the antichrist
of St. John, it is not easy to determine. But the testimony of the apostle
himself is decisive on the question of the antichrist. Here he is at the same
time both prophet and historian, for he records the fact that ‘even now are
there many antichrists;’ ‘many false prophets are gone out into the world.’
ANTICIPATION OF THE PAROUSIA.
1 John ii. 28.---‘And now, little children, abide in him,
that when he shall appear we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him
at his coming.’
1 John iii. 2.---‘We know that when he shall appear we shall
be like him, for we shall see him as he is.’
1 John iv. 7.---‘That we may have boldness in the day of
judgment.’
In
these exhortations and counsels St. John is in perfect accord with the other
apostles, whose constant admonitions to the Christian churches of their time urged
the habitual expectation of the Parousia, and therefore fidelity and constancy
in the midst of danger and suffering. The language of St. John proves,---
- That the apostolic Christians
were exhorted to live in the constant expectation of the coming of the
Lord.
- That this event was regarded by
them as the time of the revelation of Christ in His glory, and the
beatification of his faithful disciples.
- That the Parousia was also the
period of ‘the day of judgment.’
BACK