The last hour

[Marty]

1 John 2
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

What did John mean by the last hour? Obviously not the end of the world.

 

[Josheb]

1 John 2
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

What did John mean by the last hour?

The last of hour of some unidentified event or circumstance he and his readers were either personally experiencing or observing (or both).

Obviously not the end of the world.

Yeah, the "end of the world" thing has always been an error that comes from the KJV (mis-)translation of Matthew 13:49. The Greek is aionos, not kosmon. The same thing happens with Matthew 24:3. The mistranslation really messed up Christian thought, doctrine, and practice for a few hundred years. There's no place the Bible actually says the world is going to end.

John was definitely not talking about the last hour of the world's existence .

My answer to that question would be to start with everything John said was/would happen pertaining to his mention of the antichrist in his epistles. And, that being said, I would not automatically assume any equivalences to other eschatological entities (the AoD, the man of lawlessness, the beast, etc.) without first seeing an impeccable case for such a viewpoint.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What did John mean by the last hour? Obviously not the end of the world.

No, of course 1 John 2:18 wouldn't be the end of fallen mankind's history on this planet. John tells you himself what he meant by "Little children, it IS the last hour", just a few verses further on in 1 John 2:28. "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." Christ's coming bodily return was on the near horizon in John's immediate future, when the "last hour" would have expired, and there would be "delay no longer" (Rev. 10:6).

 

[Josheb]

No, of course 1 John 2:18 wouldn't be the end of fallen mankind's history on this planet. John tells you himself what he meant by "Little children, it IS the last hour", just a few verses further on in 1 John 2:28. "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." Christ's coming bodily return was on the near horizon in John's immediate future, when the "last hour" would have expired, and there would be "delay no longer" (Rev. 10:6).

Aw, now you gone and done it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Just stirring the pot...can't help myself

 

[Josheb]

Just stirring the pot...can't help myself

Well, you could.....


Personally, I'm sticking with the antichrist's coming because the time between the antichrist's coming and Jesus' coming is not specified, although the two are related. Scripture (in multiple places, not just John's epistles) implies the NT era Christians were expecting Jesus' return but John ties the last hour first to the antichrist, then (later) to Jesus. And I'm gonna part ways with that "bodily" part because Jesus comes at many times in many ways for many purposes. We need not limit his coming to a bodily coming if we're relying first (and solely) on John's mention of the last hour. I will, therefore, amend or my op-reply to say the unidentified event is the then unknown time when the antichrist would show up and/or circumstances related thereof. And I will reiterate my belief the antichrist may not be and probably is not identical to any of the other apocalyptic individuals (although I am open to reading a case for that argument).


Imagogetchow I'll see y'all later

 

[Marty]

No, of course 1 John 2:18 wouldn't be the end of fallen mankind's history on this planet. John tells you himself what he meant by "Little children, it IS the last hour", just a few verses further on in 1 John 2:28. "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." Christ's coming bodily return was on the near horizon in John's immediate future, when the "last hour" would have expired, and there would be "delay no longer" (Rev. 10:6).

Although I do think it could be about the events of 70AD and the physical end of the temple and sacrificial age the topic is about the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left.

As another person pointed out on a different site it could be the last hour of the authority of the original apostles that would end with Johns death. This authority would be given to the church though the canonized scriptures

 

[Marty]

The last of hour of some unidentified event or circumstance he and his readers were either personally experiencing or observing (or both).

Yeah, the "end of the world" thing has always been an error that comes from the KJV (mis-)translation of Matthew 13:49. The Greek is aionos, not kosmon. The same thing happens with Matthew 24:3. The mistranslation really messed up Christian thought, doctrine, and practice for a few hundred years. There's no place the Bible actually says the world is going to end.

John was definitely not talking about the last hour of the world's existence .

My answer to that question would be to start with everything John said was/would happen pertaining to his mention of the antichrist in his epistles. And, that being said, I would not automatically assume any equivalences to other eschatological entities (the AoD, the man of lawlessness, the beast, etc.) without first seeing an impeccable case for such a viewpoint.

If you read the topic of John saying the last hour you will see that’s it’s about the spirit of antichrist that had infiltrated the church through false Christian’s that was exposed and they were banished.

As another person pointed out on a different site it could be the last hour of the authority of the original apostles that would end with Johns death. This authority would be given to the church though the canonized scriptures

 

[EarlyActs]

1 John 2
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

What did John mean by the last hour? Obviously not the end of the world.

Yes the NT makes it clear that the end was expected, wrath would be on the Jew first and then the nations. But there was also an allowance for delay, which was exercised. Your question is why 2 Peter 3 was written, I think.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you read the topic of John saying the last hour you will see that’s it’s about the spirit of antichrist that had infiltrated the church through false Christian’s that was exposed and they were banished.

As another person pointed out on a different site it could be the last hour of the authority of the original apostles that would end with Johns death. This authority would be given to the church though the canonized scriptures

Do the history first, then the theology. The main opponent of the NT Christians was the Judaizers. They were infiltrating so cleverly that they even made declarations that Christians were 2nd rate compared to those who followed Christ and the Law, Col 2. That's the deceptive philosophy at work in that passage.

 

[Josheb]

If you read the topic of John saying the last hour you will see that’s it’s about the spirit of antichrist that had infiltrated the church through false Christian’s that was exposed and they were banished.

Make that case with John's epistolary.

As another person pointed out on a different site...

I don't form sound belief based on others' opinions.

it could be...

I don't form sound belief based on speculation, either. We cannot wholly escape that problem because, in this instance, scripture does not explicitly explain itself but any inferences we make should/must be based on what is explicitly stated.

the last hour of the authority of the original apostles that would end with Johns death. This authority would be given to the church though the canonized scriptures

That's hogwash. The reason it is hogwash is because that is not how the original readers would have, nor could have understood John's words. That interpretation violates the precept of original intent and original understanding. The first century Christian would never have thought a mention of locusts' sounds was a reference to 21st century helicopters (as some believe) or fire from heaven as a reference to space-based lasers (as some have asserted). We start our (speculative) answer to this op's inquiry with what the original author and his original readers would have understood, not what the text can be made to mean in light of the later institutionalization of Christian religion and scripture. Nothing in that vein is going to be correct.

In preparation for the discussion of this op I re-read John's first epistle. I encourage all the participants to do the same. Leading up to 1 John 2:18, John's stated purpose is, "...so that you may not sin," and to remind his readers that if they do sin, they have a specific, appropriate response available. Because they know Christ, are themselves strong and have the word at work within them they have, can, and will overcome. This is a theme that runs through all of John's letters and his apocalypse. Before he mentions the last hour's presence, he notes the world (kosmos) is passing away, but his readers will abide, continue through, or remain through the age (aiona). That is John's stated set up for his comment about the last hour. Absent his mention of the antichrist and the subsequent coming of Christ, that preface would be sufficient for understanding the reported "last hour." The planet did not literally pass away. If it had, we would not be here having this conversation. The kosmos is therefore a reference to one of the other meanings of that word, such as the system of the world, the worldly system. But John does lay out a sequence of events, beginning first with the arrival of the antichrist (which is why I couched my op-reply in that context rather than the end of the world or the coming of Christ. That, the antichrist, was on their mind, not just the subsequent coming of Christ.

John states "they went out from us." That sounds to me like they were either poseurs or had already been discharged. Because John defines his term "antichrist" for us we know what they believed and implicitly why they went out from the "us," the Church. They denied the Father and the Son, and Jesus came from the Father in the flesh. I do not read anything about them coming out and going back in.



So make the case for the original readers of John's first letter understanding the antichrist had infiltrated, or was going to, the Church.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Personally, I'm sticking with the antichrist's coming because the time between the antichrist's coming and Jesus' coming is not specified, although the two are related. Scripture (in multiple places, not just John's epistles) implies the NT era Christians were expecting Jesus' return but John ties the last hour first to the antichrist, then (later) to Jesus.

Yes, Christ's return in AD 70 was preceded by the one Antichrist (coming out of the many antichrists that were already present in John's time). That one Antichrist was Menahem the Zealot leader who rose to tyrannical power in Jerusalem in the summer of AD 66. It was the very brightness of this own man's coming into power as the "King of the Jews" that was his undoing. Just as soon as he "exalted himself" by presenting himself in the temple as the "King of the Jews" with his armed followers, dressed in King Herod's royal regalia he had stolen from Masada, his rival Eleazar had him captured, tortured, and slain. Eleazar was merely avenging Menahem's murder of Eleazar's father, the former high priest Ananias (the one whom Paul was on trial before in Acts 23:2.) That former high priest Ananias was the moderate "restrainer" of 2 Thess. 2:7, who had held the radical Zealots from taking over Jerusalem - for a time - until the Zealot leader Menahem murdered Ananias and "took him out of the way". Josephus recorded all of this for us in Wars 2.17.8-9. The modern-day conception of the almost super-human power of the Antichrist is greatly exaggerated, beyond the level of which Scripture informs us.

That "last hour" was upon John's first-century readers already. Ananias the high priest restrainer was then temporarily holding Menahem's Zealot faction in check, but Menahem was about to rise to power in AD 66, shortly after 1 John was written. This was followed by Christ's appearance at His bodily return to the Mount of Olives, which took place in AD 70, just as Daniel, Christ, and all the NT writers had predicted for this first-century generation. Since we have the historical details, we can now know the very day that Christ's second coming and that second bodily resurrection event took place, since Daniel gave that detailed information to us in Daniel 12:11-13.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, Christ's return in AD 70 was preceded by the one Antichrist (coming out of the many antichrists that were already present in John's time)................ That "last hour" was upon John's first-century readers already.

John's original readers did not have the knowledge of future events to inform their understanding. What you say may be true (I tend to agree but would appeal to other Zealots, like John, Simon, or Eleazor*) but John's readers don't know that. Eventually, there will be participants in this thread who will disagree with the portion I quoted and those of us currently participating will suffer ignorant ad hominem accusations of being preterist even though I, for one, have not actually asserted anything but scripture read exactly as written. That's why I have encouraged you and @Marty (and @EarlyActs) to first and foremost stay couched in John's epistle and work first and foremost from the text cited. Our naysayers are going to bring in a pile of other authors and highly eisegetic views of their texts and the modern futurists among them are going to constantly jump around from selected verse to selected verse without ever sticking with any one passage to the point of exegetical conclusion.

Which will prompt my departure from the thread because after I've brought that malfeasance to the forefront I have no interest in collaborating with its fruitlessness.

So bear with me. I don't know whether my posts to others were read but, relevant to your op reply, I'm inclined to focus on the matter of the antichrist as the salient metric for identifying the last hour of what(?). The frame is the end of the world and the subsequent coming of Jesus but right there in the middle someplace is the coming of the antichrist. That is what John says immediately after announcing the presence of the last hour (and some will say he was speaking of our future). The last hour had come (some will say that's a euphemism and an hour can last two millennia). Whatever is the last hour, it is couched by John in the fact the world is passing away in the first century and the subsequent coming of Christ and the implication John and his original readers would see it. It makes no sense to tell them what he told them if none of it is relevant to them. He'd couch everything he wrote in future conjugation so there'd be no possibility of misunderstanding (and some will deny that, too).







* I use only their first names because I know you're familiar with the history but, for those who do not know the references I can explain. All three (or four) of these men denied Jesus as Messiah and the Zealots themselves took upon themselves the messianic and divine roles. They were idolatrously apostate.
.

 

[3 Resurrections]

John's original readers did not have the knowledge of future events to inform their understanding.

Yes, they did. They had their Daniel Scriptures, which Christ had told them to pay attention to in His description of the signs for the "beginning of sorrows" which directly preceded the "days of vengeance" - which would "immediately" precede His coming return. Those "days of vengeance" would have many "false prophets" and many "false christs" coming (Matt 24:24), who would claim to be the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the prince". That "Messiah the prince" was to show up in AD 30 (by Daniel's 70-week prediction). Even the Pharisees knew that this AD 30 year was the year for the Messiah to show up, which is why they sent their delegation to John in AD 30, asking if he were the prophesied one to come. Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew as much about the timing for Messiah's coming. And all men were musing in their hearts whether John was the predicted Messiah or not (Luke 3:15.) That generation of Israelites knew more than you think they did concerning their own "last days" and the timing of their own Messiah's first coming. Which made their rejection of Him even more heinous.

Christ forewarned that the many "false christs" would be purported to have shown up in the wilderness, or in the "secret chambers" (Matt. 24:26.) These "secret chambers" were the name of the repositories in the second temple for anonymous donations for the poor, and for the upkeep of the temple (called "the chamber of secrets"). Once that entire temple was torn down to the last stone, those "secret chambers" were destroyed as well. Which means this prediction of the many "false christs" / aka antichrists would have to have made their appearance while that second temple was still standing. In other words, it is impossible for those particular "false christs" / "antichrists" Christ spoke about to be coming in our future.

The "antichrists" were a first-century phenomena which was directly tied to their expectations of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" showing up in AD 30. Those who refused to admit that Christ Jesus had come in the flesh as the fulfillment of that prophecy decided to concoct their own type of militant "Messiah", which is what each leader of the various Zealot factions was attempting to claim. Those various "antichrist" claims had to be made as close to the AD 30 year as possible, so that their claim as being that "Messiah the Prince" would be believable to the public.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, they did. They had their Daniel Scriptures...

That is knowledge of prophecy, not knowledge of the events themselves that happened in their future. They knew of the future. They did not know the future.

, which Christ had told them to pay attention to in His description of the signs for the "beginning of sorrows" which directly preceded the "days of vengeance" - which would "immediately" precede His coming return. Those "days of vengeance" would have many "false prophets" and many "false christs" coming (Matt 24:24), who would claim to be the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the prince"..............

That is true but they did not know Menahem (or John, Simon, or Eleazar) would be the antichrist. You are assuming they knew things they couldn't have known and things they probably did not know. Knowing an antichrist would come is one thing, but knowing the spcific identity of one specific antichrist is another. Many people know a lot about the Messiah from prophecy (the entire Jewish religion knows that) but they do not know the identity of the Messiah. Many people know about Jesus, but they do not know Jesus.

The "antichrists" were a first-century phenomena which was directly tied to their expectations of Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" showing up in AD 30. Those who refused to admit that Christ Jesus had come in the flesh as the fulfillment of that prophecy decided to concoct their own type of militant "Messiah", which is what each leader of the various Zealot factions was attempting to claim. Those various "antichrist" claims had to be made as close to the AD 30 year as possible, so that their claim as being that "Messiah the Prince" would be believable to the public.

That is true but none of that specifically identifies the specific antichrist of concern in John's first epistle. All they know is many antichrists exist and there will be one in particular about which they should have particular concern....... as it pertains to their not sinning and their overcoming as the passing away of the world occurred and the awaited a coming (as opposed to the coming) of Jesus.


"...when he appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from him in shame at his coming."


Why would they not shrink away? Because they had not sinned and if they had sinned the went to their advocate, and they overcame. That is what they knew. That is what the epistle states. John is not writing post canonical eschatology. He is asserting knowledge of the last hour, a small portion of the last days and last times, the ends of which had come upon the first century Church as God had foretold but all of that is outside the specifics of the epistle.




gotta go see y'all later
.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is knowledge of prophecy, not knowledge of the events themselves that happened in their future. They knew of the future. They did not know the future.

Potato, potawto, tomato, tomawto. Those who listened to Christ in Matthew 24 / Luke 21 / Mark 13 had a full list of the exact events which would transpire before His second coming return in their own first-century generation. Christ told them in Luke the timing of when all these disasters would take place "...all these things which are about to take place..." (Luke 21:36). That included His second coming return in that list, which would occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" (of vengeance). The continual progress of persecution episodes in the early church sprang up almost as soon as Christ left with His final ascension in Acts 1. These persecutions would continue in an on-off pattern throughout the years until AD 66's "days of vengeance" on the land of Israel with its "great distress" upon that people.

 

[Marty]

Make that case with John's epistolary.

I don't form sound belief based on others' opinions.

I don't form sound belief based on speculation, either. We cannot wholly escape that problem because, in this instance, scripture does not explicitly explain itself but any inferences we make should/must be based on what is explicitly stated.

That's hogwash. The reason it is hogwash is because that is not how the original readers would have, nor could have understood John's words. That interpretation violates the precept of original intent and original understanding. The first century Christian would never have thought a mention of locusts' sounds was a reference to 21st century helicopters (as some believe) or fire from heaven as a reference to space-based lasers (as some have asserted). We start our (speculative) answer to this op's inquiry with what the original author and his original readers would have understood, not what the text can be made to mean in light of the later institutionalization of Christian religion and scripture. Nothing in that vein is going to be correct.

In preparation for the discussion of this op I re-read John's first epistle. I encourage all the participants to do the same. Leading up to 1 John 2:18, John's stated purpose is, "...so that you may not sin," and to remind his readers that if they do sin, they have a specific, appropriate response available. Because they know Christ, are themselves strong and have the word at work within them they have, can, and will overcome. This is a theme that runs through all of John's letters and his apocalypse. Before he mentions the last hour's presence, he notes the world (kosmos) is passing away, but his readers will abide, continue through, or remain through the age (aiona). That is John's stated set up for his comment about the last hour. Absent his mention of the antichrist and the subsequent coming of Christ, that preface would be sufficient for understanding the reported "last hour." The planet did not literally pass away. If it had, we would not be here having this conversation. The kosmos is therefore a reference to one of the other meanings of that word, such as the system of the world, the worldly system. But John does lay out a sequence of events, beginning first with the arrival of the antichrist (which is why I couched my op-reply in that context rather than the end of the world or the coming of Christ. That, the antichrist, was on their mind, not just the subsequent coming of Christ.

John states "they went out from us." That sounds to me like they were either poseurs or had already been discharged. Because John defines his term "antichrist" for us we know what they believed and implicitly why they went out from the "us," the Church. They denied the Father and the Son, and Jesus came from the Father in the flesh. I do not read anything about them coming out and going back in.



So make the case for the original readers of John's first letter understanding the antichrist had infiltrated, or was going to, the Church.

You confuse me here, in your first two comments I didn't form any sound beliefs we are just discussing theories that's what this forum is for.

Then in your next comment I wasn't saying anything about events in the future that's not my belief at all. I don't believe in a future single figure.

The topic of John saying that it was the last hour was about false teachers leaving the church

 

[Josheb]

Although I do think it could be about the events of 70AD and the physical end of the temple and sacrificial age the topic is about the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left.

Make that case with John's epistolary.

You confuse me here, in your first two comments I didn't form any sound beliefs we are just discussing theories that's what this forum is for. Then in your next comment I wasn't saying anything about events in the future that's not my belief at all. I don't believe in a future single figure. The topic of John saying that it was the last hour was about false teachers leaving the church

Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear. Maybe I shoulda stuck an emoji in there . Post #7 says you do think "it" could be about .......... X.............. Y ..............."the topic is about the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left."


Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church?
Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church and the infiltration being exposed?
Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church and the infiltration being exposed and leaving?


I read that and think, "I wonder where he got all that stuff?" As a preterist I tend to agree with everyone currently here but that does not mean I don't want to see a case made. I'd like to know where that came from. So I say/ask, "make the case," and specify that it be made from John (not John+Paul+Jesus+Peter+++ and not eschatology X, or eschatology Y or Z). If you think it is about 70AD then make the case? Where in John did that come, one way or the other?

What did John mean by the last hour?

Great question.

Although I do think it could be about the events of 70AD and the physical end of the temple and sacrificial age the topic is about the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left.

Okay. Make that case.

Obviously not the end of the world.

Okay. Make that case. (I agree and commented accordingly so maybe that case doesn't have to be made if your take is identical or similar to mine) Afterall, the planet is still here.


Does that clarify the matter?

 

[miss managed]

'The last hour' expresses duration.

 

[Marty]

Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear. Maybe I shoulda stuck an emoji in there . Post #7 says you do think "it" could be about .......... X.............. Y ..............."the topic is about the spirit of antichrist that infiltrated the church and was exposed and left."


Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church?
Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church and the infiltration being exposed?
Is it about the spirit of the antichrist infiltrating the Church and the infiltration being exposed and leaving?


I read that and think, "I wonder where he got all that stuff?" As a preterist I tend to agree with everyone currently here but that does not mean I don't want to see a case made. I'd like to know where that came from. So I say/ask, "make the case," and specify that it be made from John (not John+Paul+Jesus+Peter+++ and not eschatology X, or eschatology Y or Z). If you think it is about 70AD then make the case? Where in John did that come, one way or the other?

Great question.

Okay. Make that case.

Okay. Make that case. (I agree and commented accordingly so maybe that case doesn't have to be made if your take is identical or similar to mine) Afterall, the planet is still here.


Does that clarify the matter?

Sure thanks, the verses in the OP prove it.

1 John
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Its not about the end of the world because John stated that his time was the last hour, and as you said "Afterall, the planet is still here."

So it must be something else.

The topic of why John knew that it was that the last hour was because the spirit of antichrist entered the church is because verse 19 sates that the reason John said that it was the last hour was because "19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

Why I think that it was also about 70AD is because that was the major event (the physical end of the temple and sacrificial age) that happened at that time