Antichrist
I'lucidates Piiiil's vacilliition as to the in'iiixl to be In liis ciirliiT KpisM't for the "(liiy of tin- f.ord.'" ties. Paul spiak'siis if lieexpectcil the ]>i()niiseil time heeouiiled upon llienijiid to arrive speedily, lieeaiise eompiest of the world l)y ClirisliaTiity, for liiiii llie first
and
eondition of llic world's perfect but experience frradually showed him
e.ssential
ri.!;liteousiie.s.s;
that his optimism was uufoiinde<l. and therefore lie speaks of the |)ower that prevents the dawning of the glad time. The statement of Paul that the wicked one will be slain by the breath of the Jlessiah is based upon ls;i
i.
4.
as interpreted in the Targiim DlJpDIN
the names of Antichrist in this passage are of .Jewish origin; the "biwless one" (II Thess. whom Paul ii. .S. R. V.) is none other than Bki.i.m. mentions in another ])lace as the opponent of the Messiah (II Cor. vi. I'l) a name interpreted by the Nj,"L"1.
Even
—
—
compounded
w ilhout. and 7iy yoke, so that Belial is the one who will not accept the yoke of the Law (Sifre. Dcut. 92; Tanna El. K. iii. 1 is thus evijlidrash Sam. vi.. ed. ]5id)er. p. 64). dent that this '•little aiioealypse" represents not a view of the Anti-.Me.ssiah. Christian, liul the .lewish The pseudepigniiihic literature (see passages <|Uoted by Bousset, pp. 80, 9i), 100) informs us that in Jewish circles in the pre-Christian period the expectation was prevalent of the appearance of Belial (one of Satan's lieutenants) if not of Satan himself; and that his activity was imagined as being almost identical with that <xpe(ted of the AnticlirisI in Thessaloniaus. There is a remarkable similarity between this !Nev Testament passage and II Sibyl. 167 ft the former a Sibylline nc'i., and III Sibyl. 46 d acq. of undoubted Jewish origin the expression in ii. iy8, the Tpicaa ai/nn-rn, the three signs of Elijah, certainlv referrinii to the Jewish tradition (found in Meki'lta Beshailah, l.ed. 'Weiss, p. (i())that beforethe appearance of the Messiah, the prophet will reveal the whereabouts of the three holy utensils which disajipeared at the time of the destruction of the Temple (compare Jellinek. "B. H." iii. 72 and Pirlje rabbis as
of »p3
1
— —
Kabbenu ha-Kadosh. ed. Gri'inhut, 57). As to the idea of the ^Vntichrist. like Jewish esehatology
itself,
Origin of
is derived from three sources: prophetical teachings, later Midrash. and an adndxiure of heathen mythology.
it
Ezekiel (.x.xxviii., .x.ix.). speaking of a last great oul]iouring of the heathen powers against Israel which outpouring is to introduce the new period foretold by the ancient prophets names Gog. the jtriuce of the land of The JIa.gog, as the rei^rescntative of those powers. same idea amplified is found in Zechariah (xii.-xiv.) where God is described as ajipearing upon Zion at the last hour with Ills hosts of angels to juotect His own from the attacks of the heathen, and to give them victory. 'When, therefore, in the Maecabean jieriod, the Jews first perceived the chasm between Judaism and heathenism, the idea of a presentation of the philosophy of the world's history was conceived and admirably carried out in Uaniel. It was no more a ijuestion of the salvation of Israel in the future, but of the redemption of the whole world. The course of the world's history. ;is illustrated by the attitude of the heathen toward the Jews, was now viewed as a continuous triumph of powers hostile to God a triumi)h which would not end the
626
Tin: .IKWISII KNCYCI.oI'KDlA
Auti^onus
Idea.
—
—
—
tmtil the whole world had become utterly corruiit. to be superseded by the kingdom of God and a new order of things. The opposition between this world and the future
world, between Satan and God, between heathen
and
Israel, naturally furnished ropreseiitalives for the supR'ine struggle in the final hour of the world's existence. If (toil in His own proper person would apjiear at the deiisive contest. His opponent could be niKither than Satan; liut if (Jod were to be represinted by .Messiah, it must of necessity follow that Satan shoidd be represented by one as close to him as was Mes-siah to Gotl that is to.say, by Antichrist. Uncertain as is the characterization of Messiah in the new orderof things, the personality of his conn In the circles that terpart is equally fluctuating. expected the ndc of Belial at the end of days. (Joii was recogni/ed as the chief personality in the final catastrojihc; and Antichrist, as the worst tool of Satan, corresponds in his sphere with that conce])among the Pharisees in t ion of the Iilcs.siah current the age of Jesus, according to which Messiah was to be the one man whom God would cn<low with especial strength and intluence. such as were voucliJust as the Ilaggadah through sjifed to no other. its interpretations of ancient ]iro]ihecies endeavored to furnish a closi' description of the personality of Messiah, similarly Antichrist received more and more definite forms derived from the descriptions and conceptions of the Old Testament. He was. for instance, very early identified with Gog such a Midrash is clearly evident in the Sept uagint translation of Num. xiv. 7 (compare also "Ab. Zarah, 'Sb; Saidi. !t4(() and his death expounded, as already re;
—
—
marked, according
to
Isii.
xi. 4.
The conception
of Antithrist no doubt also contains mythological elements, which, far from being uprooted from the national consciousness, became, through contact with Babylonia, Persia, and, at a later date, with Greece, more and more deeply ingrained in it. An eloquent proof that Antichrist meant no more than its name signifies namely, the AntiMessiah is furnished by the fact that none of the Pharisaic literature has any word concerning him. The oliicial teachings of the Pharisees in the I)ost -Christian time endeavored, for reasons easy to understand, to ne.srative all that was superhuman in the popular conception of Messiah (compare especially Justin. "Dialogus cum Tryplione." xlix.); so that no room was given for Antichrist to play any very eminent role. Thus Eliezer b. Hyrcanus an eye-witness of the national catastrophe in the year 70 sjieaks only of !i ruler after the style of Haman, who will usher in the pangs of the Slessiauic period
—
—
—
—
(nX"D be '^an;
Saidi.
its/').
of Baruch (Syriac) and IV Ezra (=11 Esdras), which originated in the same circle, knew nothing of an Antichrist: for what Baruch, xl. 1, 2, saysof the last ruler of the heathens is simplj' that the latter will choose for themselves a leader for the last battle; and IV Ezra, while it contains explicit statements concerning the pangs of the Messianic period, has no reference whatever to an Both Bousset and Gunkel are i)robably Antichrist. wrong, therefore, when they refer to Antichrist the pa.ssage (II Esd. v. 6), "And even he shall rule, whom they that dwell upon the earth look not for"
The Apocrypha
— words which,
being based on
Isa. xxiii. 13.
may
allude simjily to Home, as is apparent from Suk. .524 and Yer. Ta'anit. iii. 4. where the Romansarc meant by the euphemism "Chaldeans." It is true that there is no lack of references in Talmudic literature to the belief in a contest between God and the devil, or an evil angel, in the latter days (see AHRfM.N). To this class belongs the battle between Gabriel and the Leviathan; also the sea-monster (B. B. 74A), and the conquest of the prince of Edom, that is, Samael (Mak. 12rt; compare also the triumph of Messiah over Satan, Pesil>. R. xxxvi.).
