[lbo-talk] W = the antichrist?

[C. G. Estabrook]

"The antichrist" as being discussed here is a bit of popular piety that
has little basis in the Christian foundation documents.  In fact, in the
only place the term is used (in the Johannine letters), it's usually in
the plural and refers to Christians with whom the author disagrees
theologically.  These passages, not in the apocalyptic style, are
sometimes connected to others that were, notably some about allegorical
beasts in Revelation/Apocalypse and that about the "man of sin" in a
Pauline letter, none of which use the term "antichrist."

Apocalyptic is a contrived symbolic form of writing that predates the
Christian documents and lasts a bit beyond them (roughly 200 BCE-200 CE).  
Not much of the New Testament is written in this style, which was
essentially a political, Aesopian language, designed to condemn
recognizable political figures covertly.  When its immediate targets were
gone (e.g., the pagan emperor), its vivid images were often applied
inventively to new targets.

For example, in the midst of great political-theological struggle of the
4th century, between the pro-imperial Arians and their trinitarian
opponents, a bishop of Jerusalem called Cyril warned in his lessons for
candidates for baptism of a magician who would take control of the empire,
claim to be Christ, attract the Jews by rebuilding the Temple, and after
persecuting Christians be defeated at the second coming of the Son of God.  
But then Cyril was unusual.  --CGE

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:


> I have to dig out Revelations (or Apocalpyse, as the Catholics say) 
> later but I thought the Antichrist was supposed to be seductive, not 
> some Satanic-seeming figure. Anyone here up on the Antichrist?
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>