ECT Tyndale's Translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the One Man Anti-Christ

[northwye]

Tyndale's Translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the One Man Anti-Christ

Here is William Tyndale's 1534 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7:
"Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there come
a departing first, and that sinful man be revealed,
the son of perdition which is an
adversary, and is exalted above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped: so that
he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show
himself as God. Remember ye
not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?

And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed at his time.
For the mystery of that iniquity
does he already work, which only locks until it be
taken out of the way."

It is said that up to eighty percent of the verse wordings of the King James Version are identical or very close to the wordings of the Tyndale New Testament. But on II Thessalonians 2: 7, the King James Version breaks with the Older Tyndale translation, and follows a wording of this verse more like the Catholic Vulgate wording than that of Tyndale.

The king James agrees with the Tyndale translation of II Thessalonians Chapter 2 on verses 2 through 6.

But the King James says for II Thessalonians 2: 7 has: "For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Tyndale translates μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται as "which only locks until it be
taken out of the way." This is a big difference for verse 7.

Kateko, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 2722, means "to hold down, withhold. The King James translates it as "letteth." But Tyndale translates it as "locks," meaning to lock in place that takeover of the temple of God in the believer by the sinful man.

Since Acts 7: 48, I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19 say that God no longer dwells in temples built by human hands and the Temple of God is now the believer himself, then the Temple in II Thessalonians 2: 4 is metaphoric, meaning the believer himself. That the Temple is the believer himself has to be revealed to you, the reader by the Spirit, and there is a spiritual and joyful connection to the Spirit of God in the person to whom this is revealed in the opening of this metaphor.

The idea that there is a restrainer who restrains the appearing of the anti-Christ figure of Christian Zionism until some time near the end after the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, and/or the arrival of the apostasy is based upon the King James translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7. It is not based on the Tyndale translation.

In his writings Tyndale explains that the anti-Christ is not a single individual but is a present danger to Christians, since it is not something that is always in the future. The dispensationalist one man anti-Christ is to come in the future.

The Geneva Bible translation group changed Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the King James Committee followed the Geneva Bible. The Geneva translation group was influenced by the translation work of Calvinist Theodore Beza.

Théodore Beza, was the editor of a Greek New Testament, which appeared in 1565, and Beza's Latin version of the New Testament was printed in 1557, before the Geneva Bible.

Here is Theodore Beza's Latin version (1557) of II Thessalonians 2: 7: Jam enim peragitur mysterium
impietatis hu^us ; tantum qui nunc
obstat, obstabit usquedum e medio
sublatus fuerit.

7 Now we have the mystery
impiety hu ^ us; only now
an obstacle, an obstacle until the middle.

Lets see what the Catholic Latin Vulgate says for II Thessalonians 2: 7: nam mysterium iam operatur iniquitatis tantum ut qui tenet nunc donec de medio fiat.

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until he be gone," It looks like the idea of a restrainer who holds back the arrival of the man of sin, or the one man anti-Christ, or the apostasy of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 is found in Jerome's Catholic Vulgate Bible. Did Theodore Beza, the successor to Calvin, reject Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and return to the older Catholic idea that the appearing of the man of sin is being held back until that restraint or restrainer is taken out of the way. Beza very well could have done that.

In the King James for II Thessalonians 2: 7 the man of sin, who many in the churches say is the one man anti-Christ, is being held back by something or someone restraining or holding him back at present, until the restrainer is taken out of the way in the future. The dispensationalist view that the anti-Christ as a one man figure is to appear in the future - probably during the tribulation - when the anti-Christ sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - is easier to arrive at from the King James Version than from the Tyndale translation.. In the King James the man of sin is being held back now but he will be released to appear later. And the restrainer is said to be the Church or the Holy Spirit.

But William Tyndale taught that the man of sin is at work now and will be locked in place until he or it will be taken away.

Tyndale saw that the Jews missed the Messiah when he came, and they are still looking for him to come later. In like manner, Christians fail to correctly identify anti-Christ because they are looking for him to come later, and "he" is not one man as is taught by the huge number of false prophets (Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3).

 

[User Name]

Christians fail to correctly identify anti-Christ because they are looking for him to come later, and "he" is not one man as is taught by the huge number of false prophets (Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3).

See also, 1 John 2:18.

Paul calls us to be "transformed" (Romans 12:2), "renewed" (Col 3:10), and "translated" (Col 1:13). Prior to this conversion, Jesus says that we are under "the power of Satan" (Acts 26:18).

 

[Danoh]

Your stumble, northwye, is the stumble of many.

The attempt to arrive at the intended sense of any word by itself is ever an important one.

What part of speech it might be; what its' case might be, what its' tense might be, what its' gender might be; what its' number might be, and so on.

But as you, and IP, and even some "MADs" too often prove - as important as all that is to the attempt to properly arrive at the intended meaning or sense of any word, and or phrase...

That alone is far too often insufficient - even where one is actually aware of those important rules of thumb to begin with.

There is ever the one - greater rule of thumb.

That meta rule of thumb - or rule that is (meta or) above all the other ones.

The rule of thumb of, yes, there is ever the need to consider all those other rules - BUT - in light OF the OVERALL narrative in which any ONE word and or phrasing is found being used in Scripture.

All the various shades of who, what, what, when, where, why, and how ever need to be considered.

And each of those are often also comprised of different aspects of a thing.

As in the simple case of who, to whom, about who, in light of whom.

Or what, about what, in light of what.

And so on...

Truth be told - beyond the simple "Christ died for our sins" the Scripture was not intended for just anyone to come along and just approach it any ol way, anyone guesses at.

Rather, it was intended for those trained first, in all the above.

For twist how some might certain passages, the conclusion made obvious in other passages, is that the Spirit now leads one to a sound understanding OF His Word NOT ONLY THROUGH His Word BUT ONLY WHEN SOUND Principles of study are BOTH DILIGENTLY sought out, AS WELL AS... DILIGENTLY applied.

Only then can one be said to be "apt to teach."

Just as the following men had been TRAINED in such...

Nehemiah 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. 8:4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people; ) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. 8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

By the way, those passages there make it obvious why those, say, on YouTube who are ever confused in their Black Hebrews foolishness, will be seen to have one individual who reads out the passages, followed by another individual supposedly properly interpreting it.

It is also the practice described in 1 Corinthians 14 - lol - that the Apostle Paul is describing was ever being interrupted by the "that's not for us!!!" club of his day

But, all ribbing aside, those gifts of interpretation (which is also another meaning for the word "prophecy") are no longer.

We are now left with a completed, and thus "more sure word of prophecy" together with the need to consider basic principles like the above.

Which often means getting out a good book on English Grammar.

Especially where such a book goes into the history of English and its' greatly evolved changes in communicating intended sense through rules of Grammar.

The Greek is all that alone also.

For the Greek of today, is often nowhere near the Greek of two thousand years ago.

Likewise with various differences between todays' LATER Modern English, and the EARLY Modern English of the KJV.

 

[northwye]

Among the three great early English translations, the Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible and the King James Version, about 80 percent of the Tyndale New Testament's verse wordings were used, sometimes exactly, in the Geneva Bible and In the King James.

See: http://www.tyndale.org/tsj03/mansbridge.html

"It will be seen that in these nine chapters more than 83% of the words in the Geneva Version were taken direct from Tyndale, and more than 81% of the words in the King James Version. I believe this sample is statistically valid for the whole New Testament."

Tyndale's accuracy in translating the Textus Receptus into English is shown in the use of his English word choices and sentence structures by the committees that created the Geneva Bible and the King James Version. Remember that Tyndale was one man inspired by God, and he was then part of a very, very small remnant of Israel.

In some instances in which Tyndale uses a different English word consistently than do the Geneva Bible and the King James, as he does for ekklesia, it is because Tyndale is following the principle that says to use an English word closest in meaning at the time of translation to the meaning of the Greek word at the time the original Greek text was written. This is the case with Tyndale's consistent use of congregation for ekklesia.

The Geneva and King James translations consistently use church for ekklesia. Congregation has a meaning much closer to the meaning of ekklesia, as a meeting, assembly or congregation, than does church which the Oxford English Dictionary reveals. See: http://civ.icelord.net/read.php?f=3&i=63650&t=63650&v=f

"CHURCH: FORMS: (a) cirice, cyrice, chiriche, churiche, chereche, CIRCE, cyrce, chyrce, cirke, etc., etc."

"...there is now a general
agreement among scholars in referring it to the Greek word, properly kurion adj. 'of the Lord, dominicum, dominical' (f. Kurios lord), which
occurs, from the 3rd century at least, used substantively (sc. doma, or the like) = 'house of the Lord.." But the early use of Kurios was perhaps to a pagan house of worship."

The Oxford English Dictionary mentions the Greek goddess circe, and also says in caps in its list of spellings of church, the word CIRCE. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists circe as one spelling of church, but does not mention a possible origin of circe from the Greek goddess circe.

"The L. circus, and a Gothic word kйlikn 'tower, upper chamber' (app. originally
Gaulish) have both been proposed (the latter suggested by the Alemannic chilihha), but are set aside as untenable; "

Early meanings for cirice, chiriche, churiche, chereche, or CIRCE may have been rejected by the churches because of the pagan implications of these meanings.

The churches much prefer the definition of church as Body of Christ than any of the pagan implications attached to the earlier use of this word in various spellings. But ekklesia is a common noun and any word equating to Body of Christ, Saints, the Elect or Redeemed Israel would be a Proper Noun and capitalized. So if Church becomes defined as a proper noun, then it should be in caps.

Whereas the Geneva Bible and the King James consistently use dispensation for oikonomía, Tyndale does not use dispensation at all in any of the texts where the Greek oikonomía appears. This is very interesting and I am not sure exactly why Tyndale avoided the use of dispensation when the earlier Wycliffe English Catholic New Testament of 1382, translated into Middle English from the Latin Vulgate, consistently used dispensacioun.


John Wycliffe Translation to English From the Latin Vulgate:

Euery soule be suget to heiyere powers.
For ther is no power
but of God, and tho thingis that ben of God,
ben ordeyned.

Then, William Tyndale translated the Greek word
εξουσιαις not as power or powers, as in the
Catholic Latin Vulgate, translated into English in the
Douay-Rheims, but as authority. Authority
is of God, not of man, or the Catholic Church..

exousia, exousia, Strong's number 1849, "authority,
jurisdiction, liberty, right, strength."

And again, Theodore Beza, the Calvinist, who went
back to the Catholic version of Romans 13: 1 and in his
Latin New Testament of 1557 said:

"OMNIS anima potestatibus supereminentibus subjecta esto ;
non enim est potestas nisi a Deo j et quae sunt potestates, sunt a IJeo or-
dinatae. "

The Geneva Bible for Romans 13: 1 says "Let
euery soule be subiect vnto the higher powers:
for there is no power but of God: and the powers
that be, are ordeined of God"

The King James Version followed the Geneva Bible and used powers
instead of Tyndale's authority, apparently returning to the Catholic Vulgate-Douay-Rheims.

And again, was Theodore Beza the one who returned the Catholic use of powers to Romans 13: 1, as he returned the Catholic translation of ekklesia to church from Tyndale's congregation.

Tyndale might say to us that the spirit of Anti-christ has been successful in deceiving us
into looking for him to come sometime in the future,when all along it has been running around deceiving us.

He said "Mark this also above all things – that Antichrist is not an outward thing, that is to say,
a man that should suddenly appear with wonders, as our fathers talked of him. No,
verily; for Antichrist is a spiritual thing. And is as much to say as against Christ; that
is, one that preacheth false doctrine, contrary to Christ.
Antichrist was in the Old Testament, and fought with the prophets; he was also in
the time of Christ and the apostles, as thou readest in the Epistles of John, and of
Paul to the Corinthians and Galatians, and other Epistles. Antichrist is now, and will,
(I doubt not) endure till the world’s end. But his nature is (when he is revealed and
overcome with the word of God) to go out of play for a season, and to disguise
himself, and then to come in again with new raiment.
As thou seest how Christ rebuketh the Scribes and the Pharisees in the gospel.
(which were very Antichrists,) saying, Woe be to you, Pharisees, for ye rob widow’
s houses; ye pray long prayers under a colour; ye shut up the kingdom of heaven, and suffer them not that would enter in; ye have taken away the key of knowledge;
ye make men break God’s commandments with your traditions;"

http://newmatthewbible.org/least.pdf

"Patrick Collinson, in an
article called
William Tyndale and the
Course of the English Reformation,
called it “a paradox” that this man – who contributed
so much to the English Reformation, and who was so
important that he was
determinedly pursued by enemies across international
borders for years, and who knew
himself and was known by others to have been given
grace by God for his special work,
and who significantly influenced both the course of
English history and language, and
who gave us the best and the most in our English Bible – that this man should have
been “so soon forgotten.”
Mr. Collinson noted the recognition Tyndale received in
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs as God’s “Apostle to England
”, but then how swiftly he came to
be ignored in Church histories, and his work diminished."

William Tyndale was a member of a very small remnant who began the work of restoring God's plan of redemption at a time close to that of Martin Luther and John Calvin whose work of restoring the work of redemption was only partial. Tyndale's work should be closely looked at by the contemporary remnant.

"From the time of Christ’s rejection by Israel until the time when God deals specifically with Israel again in the seventieth week it is not possible to refer to a remnant of the nation Israel." Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, 1965, by J. Dwight Pentecost

While the Christian Zionist cannot see very well with either eye, the preterist can see out of one eye to understand a large part of the beginnings of the New Covenant, but out of his other eye, the preterist cannot see NT prophecy applying to a period of time after the First Century, meaning he is blind in one eye. It may be that the preterist does not agree with the remnant because the preterists are fixated also in church theology.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry, North, but the assumptions about the future, the rebuilt temple, etc, just don't hold. All this needs to start in Dan 8:13, and then we find the term 'rebellion that desolates' personalized into the 'abomination that desolates' in ch 9. Then it is the one thing Christ quotes from Daniel 9 and it is in his section on 1st century Judea, which we would expect because the 490 years end.

Josephus was expecting him because of that time frame and even Caiaphas acts on this (Jn 11 and 18) but in a way of preventing it from happening (he hopes to save Israel by getting rid of Christ--so obviously he was afraid something was to happen to Israel in that time frame).

 

[daqq]

Tyndale's Translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the One Man Anti-Christ

Here is William Tyndale's 1534 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7:
"Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there come
a departing first, and that sinful man be revealed,
the son of perdition which is an
adversary, and is exalted above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped: so that
he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show
himself as God. Remember ye
not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?

And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed at his time.
For the mystery of that iniquity
does he already work, which only locks until it be
taken out of the way."

It is said that up to eighty percent of the verse wordings of the King James Version are identical or very close to the wordings of the Tyndale New Testament. But on II Thessalonians 2: 7, the King James Version breaks with the Older Tyndale translation, and follows a wording of this verse more like the Catholic Vulgate wording than that of Tyndale.

The king James agrees with the Tyndale translation of II Thessalonians Chapter 2 on verses 2 through 6.

But the King James says for II Thessalonians 2: 7 has: "For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Tyndale translates μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται as "which only locks until it be
taken out of the way." This is a big difference for verse 7.

Kateko, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 2722, means "to hold down, withhold. The King James translates it as "letteth." But Tyndale translates it as "locks," meaning to lock in place that takeover of the temple of God in the believer by the sinful man.

Since Acts 7: 48, I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19 say that God no longer dwells in temples built by human hands and the Temple of God is now the believer himself, then the Temple in II Thessalonians 2: 4 is metaphoric, meaning the believer himself. That the Temple is the believer himself has to be revealed to you, the reader by the Spirit, and there is a spiritual and joyful connection to the Spirit of God in the person to whom this is revealed in the opening of this metaphor.

The idea that there is a restrainer who restrains the appearing of the anti-Christ figure of Christian Zionism until some time near the end after the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, and/or the arrival of the apostasy is based upon the King James translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7. It is not based on the Tyndale translation.

In his writings Tyndale explains that the anti-Christ is not a single individual but is a present danger to Christians, since it is not something that is always in the future. The dispensationalist one man anti-Christ is to come in the future.

The Geneva Bible translation group changed Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the King James Committee followed the Geneva Bible. The Geneva translation group was influenced by the translation work of Calvinist Theodore Beza.

Théodore Beza, was the editor of a Greek New Testament, which appeared in 1565, and Beza's Latin version of the New Testament was printed in 1557, before the Geneva Bible.

Here is Theodore Beza's Latin version (1557) of II Thessalonians 2: 7: Jam enim peragitur mysterium
impietatis hu^us ; tantum qui nunc
obstat, obstabit usquedum e medio
sublatus fuerit.

7 Now we have the mystery
impiety hu ^ us; only now
an obstacle, an obstacle until the middle.

Lets see what the Catholic Latin Vulgate says for II Thessalonians 2: 7: nam mysterium iam operatur iniquitatis tantum ut qui tenet nunc donec de medio fiat.

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until he be gone," It looks like the idea of a restrainer who holds back the arrival of the man of sin, or the one man anti-Christ, or the apostasy of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 is found in Jerome's Catholic Vulgate Bible. Did Theodore Beza, the successor to Calvin, reject Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and return to the older Catholic idea that the appearing of the man of sin is being held back until that restraint or restrainer is taken out of the way. Beza very well could have done that.

In the King James for II Thessalonians 2: 7 the man of sin, who many in the churches say is the one man anti-Christ, is being held back by something or someone restraining or holding him back at present, until the restrainer is taken out of the way in the future. The dispensationalist view that the anti-Christ as a one man figure is to appear in the future - probably during the tribulation - when the anti-Christ sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - is easier to arrive at from the King James Version than from the Tyndale translation.. In the King James the man of sin is being held back now but he will be released to appear later. And the restrainer is said to be the Church or the Holy Spirit.

But William Tyndale taught that the man of sin is at work now and will be locked in place until he or it will be taken away.

Tyndale saw that the Jews missed the Messiah when he came, and they are still looking for him to come later. In like manner, Christians fail to correctly identify anti-Christ because they are looking for him to come later, and "he" is not one man as is taught by the huge number of false prophets (Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3).

Good post. One may understand these things by way of the Testimony of Messiah in the Gospel accounts and the similar words and forms employed. For instance, in the Parable of the Sower, you will find katecho employed in the Luke version as follows:

Luke 8:9-15 ASV
9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be.
10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 ​And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.
13 And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14 ​And that which fell among the thorns, these are they that have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, [κατεχουσιν] and bring forth fruit with patience.

Holding fast the Word therefore tills the soil of the heart and restrains "tares", "weeds", "thorns", and so on, so that the seed of the Word may take deep root in the fertile soil of the heart, being watered daily, and sprouting up, and budding forth, and bearing fruit over time in the faithful. That "holding fast" is a form of katecho, a sort of reverse usage but still yet a restrainer of bad or evil; and since you understand that the man is the temple of the Holy Spirit, I think you will understand what this means within the context of the overall subject matter of your thread.

In like manner the difference between entos and mesos is expounded and exemplified in the different usages from Luke 17:21, (the kingdom of Elohim is entos-within-inside you), and Matthew 18:20, (where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the mesos-midst of them). So mesos, as it is used by Paul in the passage referenced for the subject matter of this thread, does not speak of evil being entos-inside the new man in Messiah, but rather, rising up out of the mesos-midst in an appointed time when a falling away occurs, (an appointed time which no one knows but the Father; each in his or her own appointed times because the man, every man, is a temple). So the son of perdition rises up out of the mesos-midst, which is yet again the same old allegory for "the flesh" which Paul so often speaks about, and which according to the allegory is the "outer bounds" temple "commons" or "profane area" of the body-temple of the man, (where all sorts of sin, evils, and wild beasts can and do reside, Rom 7:18-25).

 

[Nang]

Holding fast the Word therefore tills the soil of the heart and restrains "tares", "weeds", "thorns", and so on, so that the seed of the Word may take deep root in the fertile soil of the heart, being watered daily, and sprouting up, and budding forth, and bearing fruit over time in the faithful. That "holding fast" is a form of katecho, a sort of reverse usage but still yet a restrainer of bad or evil;

Amen . . And I snipped from your post only to emphasize your very correct premise.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Tyndale's Translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the One Man Anti-Christ

Here is William Tyndale's 1534 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 3-7:
"Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there come
a departing first, and that sinful man be revealed,
the son of perdition which is an
adversary, and is exalted above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped: so that
he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show
himself as God. Remember ye
not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?

And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed at his time.
For the mystery of that iniquity
does he already work, which only locks until it be
taken out of the way."

We get a good understanding of this from further scriptures.

While an individual may be a temple of the Holy Spirit, the main use of the term concerns the assembly or assemblies as a whole.

Spoken of in Daniel as the sanctuary of God, or in our time, the churches.(not all churches are real churches)

Here are some verses-

Jer 11:13 For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense unto Baal.
Jer 11:14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble.
Jer 11:15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest.
Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
Jer 11:17 For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.

Remember that as went Israel of the OC so does the churches of the new covenant in the end.

See my thread on baal worship.

That which restrains is gone at the first trumpet and it is no rapture--

Rev 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

The burning up (not fire, but lack of water)refers to the ministers and the feeding in the churches--

Joe 1:12 The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.
Joe 1:13 Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God.

Joe 1:18 How do the beasts groan! the herds of cattle are perplexed, because they have no pasture; yea, the flocks of sheep are made desolate.
Joe 1:19 O LORD, to thee will I cry: for the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field.
Joe 1:20 The beasts of the field cry also unto thee: for the rivers of waters are dried up, and the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness.

However God has something further in mind.

LA

 

[northwye]

"While an individual may be a temple of the Holy Spirit, the main use of the term concerns the assembly or assemblies as a whole."

The question rather is who is "ye" in I Corinthians 3: 16-17? If an individual is the temple of God, then he or she has been born again - John 3: 3-7 - and has been transformed - Romans 12: 2 - and has Christ in them - Philippians 2: 5 and Colossians 1: 27. Do not attribute to a group or collective that which only applies to certain individuals, especially not in a time when the collective is in false doctrines.

"He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." Matthew 13: 27-30

 

[Interplanner]

nORTH,
there is plenty of reason to stick with the ordinary in those Thess passages. The symbols are interesting, but you need to do as much work on 1st century conditions and definitions as you have on Tyndale's era.

 

[Nang]

"While an individual may be a temple of the Holy Spirit, the main use of the term concerns the assembly or assemblies as a whole."

The question rather is who is "ye" in I Corinthians 3: 16-17? If an individual is the temple of God, then he or she has been born again - John 3: 3-7 - and has been transformed - Romans 12: 2 - and has Christ in them - Philippians 2: 5 and Colossians 1: 27. Do not attribute to a group or collective that which only applies to certain individuals, especially not in a time when the collective is in false doctrines.

"He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." Matthew 13: 27-30

Switching Truth from the particular, to the "collective" or general, is usually nothing but a defensive dodge by the guilty party's accountability to meet exact legalities of the Truth, under which only individuals are answerable.

IOW's, the fact that the "Son of Sam" was undoubtedly guilty of serial murder, does not condemn the entire USA because he was a citizen of that country, does it? Inane and ridiculous concept, yes?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

"While an individual may be a temple of the Holy Spirit, the main use of the term concerns the assembly or assemblies as a whole."

The question rather is who is "ye" in I Corinthians 3: 16-17? If an individual is the temple of God, then he or she has been born again - John 3: 3-7 - and has been transformed - Romans 12: 2 - and has Christ in them - Philippians 2: 5 and Colossians 1: 27. Do not attribute to a group or collective that which only applies to certain individuals, especially not in a time when the collective is in false doctrines.

"He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." Matthew 13: 27-30

No.

The end times are concerned with the falling away of the churches first established among the nations since the early church.

The sanctuary of God is not one individual and not the overcomers either.

The sanctuary of God is being overcome by the love of money, sex, and drugs as we speak.

So the use of the temple of God in 2 Thes ch2 is speaking of the churches, plural.

Why do you not know this?

LA

 

[Interplanner]

No.

The end times are concerned with the falling away of the churches first established among the nations since the early church.

The sanctuary of God is not one individual and not the overcomers either.

The sanctuary of God is being overcome by the love of money, sex, and drugs as we speak.

So the use of the temple of God in 2 Thes ch2 is speaking of the churches, plural.

Why do you not know this?

LA

That temple is a normal temple, and the person stands there in the normal sense. He is proclaiming himself God in the normal sense that 1st century Judaism said. (Christ said this would happen in Mt 24A). It was to be destroyed. The classes of Israel that had more money and allegiance to Herodians would be the ones thinking they would be safe and there would always be Pax Romana even in Israel, but it was not. Christ did destroy the abominable generation, but the 2nd coming in judgement did not happen, which I think most of them were expecting. And which is only answered in 2 Peter 3, where we notice Paul is hard for Peter to understand.

 

[northwye]

"The end times are concerned with the falling away of the churches first established among the nations since the early church."

The phrase "principle of the remnant" is not found in scripture.

But - "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
22. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness." Isaiah 10: 20-22

The remnant are a small number, though the multitude are many people. Return, used in Isaiah 10: 21 and 10: 22, is from shuwb, to turn back, to restore. It means to turn back to God, to restore that which was torn down. "Yet a remnant of them shall return, the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness."

"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:" Romans 9: 27

"Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Romans 11: 3-5

Just as there was a remnant at the time when Elijah was running from Jezebel and thought he was the only one left who was faithful to God, God told him that he had a remnant of seven thousand who had not bowed their knee to Baal, so a remnant became the elect and began the New Covenant.

And the principle here is that when the multitude falls away into false doctrines as in 1 Kings 19:18 when God had a remnant of seven thousand who did not worship Baal, God maintains a remnant who are faithful to him. The remnant carries on the redemptive work of God when the multitude falls away into apostasy. This is the principle of the remnant.

"These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." Revelation 14: 4-5

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood....17. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12: 15, 17

The serpent-dragon inspires the false prophets to teach false doctrines, and the dragon makes war against the remnant, But the remnant has the testimony of Jesus Christ, and it is implied here that they use that testimony at this time of apostasy.

"And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." Revelation 18: 23

"Thee" is Babylon, where it says that once the light shined but shines there no longer and once the voice of the bridegroom and the bride was heard there, but are heard no more.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18: 4

God calls those who are his out of Babylon.

 

[daqq]

"While an individual may be a temple of the Holy Spirit, the main use of the term concerns the assembly or assemblies as a whole."

The question rather is who is "ye" in I Corinthians 3: 16-17? If an individual is the temple of God, then he or she has been born again - John 3: 3-7 - and has been transformed - Romans 12: 2 - and has Christ in them - Philippians 2: 5 and Colossians 1: 27. Do not attribute to a group or collective that which only applies to certain individuals, especially not in a time when the collective is in false doctrines.

"He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." Matthew 13: 27-30

Switching Truth from the particular, to the "collective" or general, is usually nothing but a defensive dodge by the guilty party's accountability to meet exact legalities of the Truth, under which only individuals are answerable.

IOW's, the fact that the "Son of Sam" was undoubtedly guilty of serial murder, does not condemn the entire USA because he was a citizen of that country, does it? Inane and ridiculous concept, yes?

Amen, there are two bodies of Messiah in the temple typology and analogies. The one great body is the great congregation of believers, of which each individual believer is likened to a precious stone, (clean, bright, and full of the light of the Word), being shaped and fashioned so as to fit into the greater overall temple which is continually being built by Messiah, (by way of his Testimony written in the Gospel accounts, and the testimony of his apostles and disciples in the NT writings). However each individual believer is also a temple, and there is also the inner sanctuary, the naos, which implies the mind, and the altar is the heart, an altar of adamah-soil, (Exo 20:24 and its companion statement from Deut 5:29), as taught in the parable of the Sower, (and there is also the body-temple with its various "members"). The analogies therefore work together in perfect harmony when we first judge ourselves, for even as Paul says; if we would judge ourselves we would not be judged, and in this manner those who follow the patterns and the Testimony written will no doubt become perfectly fitted for wheresoever the Father has designed for them to fit, (in the greater overall body of Messiah). These two types of the temple analogy work together hand in hand but should not be confused or confounded when it comes to attempting to understand what any particular passage might be speaking about. There are some really important passages where this differentiation is critical to the understanding and to the results of what would be the actions taken according to ones understanding of the passage.

Example:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 KJV
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

In my understanding this is not speaking of those outside ourselves because, as he says, to avoid worldly people we "would need to go outside of the world" to avoid them. What then does he mean by judging those "within"? "A fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner", these things are all "demons", "devils", "evils", "doctrines of devils", and all of which most importantly represent sins: and thus things or even allegorical "entities" which we need to cut off from among the "members" of our own households, (for every man is a house or household with its various "members", "Mortify therefore your "members" which are upon your land, (erets-outer-bounds-profane)", "Mortify the deeds of the body"). However, if one views this passage as speaking to the greater body congregation-church, then what is the resulting action that will be taken by the leadership of that "church-corporation-entity"? The church calls it excommunication, (anathema), and not to say that such an action should never be taken by the overall congregation; but the more appropriate understanding is that we are to judge ourselves first and foremost. This impacts very much of our understanding, even the parables of the Master in many places, ("the enemies of a man shall those of his own household", Matthew 10:34-38, Micah 7:5-6, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, all these things are supernal and internal because every man is a house in the doctrine of Messiah). If I keep my house in order then what need have I to judge anyone outside myself? It generally only happens when someone judges me first and that is generally only on wild and crazy internet forum boards.

 

[northwye]

Ezekiel 5:1-6 says: And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's rasor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weight, and divide the hair.
2. Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.
3. Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.
4. Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel.
5. Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.
6. And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them. "And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them."

Ezekiel 5: 1-6 and 5: 12 is a kind of parallel to Zechariah 13: 8-9, "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
9. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God."

Zechariah 13: 8-9 and Ezekiel 5: 1-6 are principles by which God deals with those who claim to be his people. Zechariah 13: 8-9 does not say that one third of those claiming to be God's people are brought through a fire and refined and that God will accept them as his people. It says two parts will be cut off and die, while one part will be refined and accepted, which can be called he remnant.

In Ezekiel 5: 1-6 and 5: 12 three parts are judged. In Ezekiel 5: 3 a few in number are metaphorically binded in Ezekiel's skirts.

And Ezekiel 5: 5-6 says all of these parts are Jerusalem, and Jerusalem "hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her..."

I Corinthians 10: 11: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Using I Corinthians 10: 11, we can see that "Jerusalem" in Ezekiel 5: 6 is a type for the Capital C Church in apostasy as in II Thessalonians 2: 3-8. And Luke 13:20-21, as well as some interesting texts in I Timothy and II Timothy support this apostasy.

These texts are I Timothy 4: 1-2, II Timothy 3: 1-8, II Timothy 3: 13, II Timothy 4: 3-4 and even I Timothy 6:20-21, especially the Greek there, αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως, or anti-thesis tes pseudonumou gnoseos, "anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge," which is a warning about the use of the dialectic way of argument - which comes about in a period of apostasy.

But remember that Ezekiel 5: 6 says that Jerusalem in its apostasy changed God's judgments and statutes more than did the peoples or nations around it.

The Capital C Church, which tries to make itself into the Body of Christ, and a unique thing - as a proper noun like Israel - ends up worse than the world. Thats prophecy from Ezekiel, projected through I Corinthians 10: 11 into the future from Ezekiel's time to apply to the Church during the period of the New Covenant.

 

[Squeaky]

I am not here to argue. But you have taken one verse and stretched further than I have ever seen before. With the antichrist present as you say. Do you think he could be behind your curiosity? What do you do with this verse???

Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

 

[northwye]

For those who do not like the New Testament prophecies about an apostasy happening, for which the apostasy seen in Ezekiel 5: 5-6 is a part of a principle stated in Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and in Zechariah 13: 8-9 there are steps or connections between Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and Zechariah 13: 8-9 and the prophecies of a New Covenant apostasy in II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 and in Luke 13: 20-21, I Timothy 4: 1-2, II Timothy 3: 1-8, II Timothy 3: 13, II Timothy 4: 3-4 and I Timothy 6:20-21.

I do not know what "Hermeneutic" is being used to understand Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and Zechariah 13: 8-9. It could be that a literalist interpretation is being made of these two scriptures, rather than seeing them as stating general principles. If the two texts are both seen as talking only about an apostasy of Old Covenant Israel, then it makes a little sense that the writer is objecting to applying the scriptures to apostasy in the New Covenant time.

But if both Old Testament texts are giving us a general set of principles - which can be applied to parts of a multitude who are in false doctrines and are not following God, and a remnant which is following God - then it makes more sense to see the two texts as parallels of each other. And as general principles for the multitude and the remnant, it makes sense to apply this to an apostasy involving a multitude and a remnant in the New Covenant time.

Then there is I Corinthians 10: 11. In I Corinthians 10 Paul is writing about those following Moses drinking of Christ who he calls that spiritual rock, and Paul says these things were our examples. Are we to make these things our examples only concerning the 40 years of the wilderness trek by those following Moses? Or can Old Testament events and prophecies be applied to New Testament times in a broader way, so long as doing so does not violate New Testament doctrines?

But even without I Corinthians 10: 11, since Ezekiel 5: 1-12 gives us general principles about multitudes who it can be seen are in error, not obeying God, and the remnant, we can apply what is said there to New Covenant apostasy of the multitude, and to whom might that apostasy happen? To the Church. It may be that the whole object here is a defense of the Church from any prophecy about its apostasy.

"With the antichrist present as you say. Do you think he could be behind your curiosity?" This might be an indication of where this is all coming from? Who believes in a one man anti-Christ? What Church theology is most likely to insist on a one man anti-Christ, and in II Thessalonians 2: 3-7. The apparent metaphor Paul uses in II Thessalonians 2: 4, about the Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God does not necessarily say the man of sin is the anti-Christ, or the spirit of anti-Christ. As far as this Church theology is concerned - that is, Christian Zionism - there is no metaphor in II Thessalonians 2: 4 because the temple is literally a rebuilt temple of God in Jerusalem. Acts 7: 48, I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19, saying God does not reside in temples built by human hands and now the temple of God is the believer himself is all ignored in making II Thessalonians 2: 4 literal.

There is no one man anti-Christ in scripture. In I John 4: 3 it says "...και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη." In English I John 4: 3 says according to the George Ricker Berry Greek-English Interlinear "and this is of the ant-Christ of which ye have heard that it comes and now is in the world it is already."

William Tyndale adds the English word Spirit between the Greek words το του. "And every spirit which confesseth not ye Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist of whom ye have heard how that he should come: and even now already is he in the world." The King James follows Tyndale and adds the word Spirit, to say that the spirit of antichrist will come.

See: http://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_john/4-3.htm

This site translates ἔρχεται, third person singular, as "that it is coming." The anti-Christ in I John 4: 3 is said to be an "it," not a "he."

 

[Danoh]

Unless the Apostle Paul was preaching Messianic Judaism (and I hold he was not); his words in 1 Corinthians 10 had been addressed to Jews within the Body, just as his words in Romans 7 were.

Universal "one size fits all" principles, is one thing.

But the principle of context over rules it.

Problem is, northwye, yours is the context of Reformed Theology, going in.

Better to leave one's theology at the door, as one goes in to proceed to attempt to discern what's what.

This is what I mean whenever I assert that "I hold A Mid-Acts, more or less."

I not only try to leave the Mid-Acts I more or less hold to, at the door, as I go into Scripture to seek out the what's what of one thing or another, but I also try to consider the possible merit of one aspect or another, of other people's views...

2P or not 2P?

Neither is the best approach...going in.

 

[Interplanner]

For those who do not like the New Testament prophecies about an apostasy happening, for which the apostasy seen in Ezekiel 5: 5-6 is a part of a principle stated in Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and in Zechariah 13: 8-9 there are steps or connections between Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and Zechariah 13: 8-9 and the prophecies of a New Covenant apostasy in II Thessalonians 2: 3-7 and in Luke 13: 20-21, I Timothy 4: 1-2, II Timothy 3: 1-8, II Timothy 3: 13, II Timothy 4: 3-4 and I Timothy 6:20-21.

I do not know what "Hermeneutic" is being used to understand Ezekiel 5: 1-12 and Zechariah 13: 8-9. It could be that a literalist interpretation is being made of these two scriptures, rather than seeing them as stating general principles. If the two texts are both seen as talking only about an apostasy of Old Covenant Israel, then it makes a little sense that the writer is objecting to applying the scriptures to apostasy in the New Covenant time.

But if both Old Testament texts are giving us a general set of principles - which can be applied to parts of a multitude who are in false doctrines and are not following God, and a remnant which is following God - then it makes more sense to see the two texts as parallels of each other. And as general principles for the multitude and the remnant, it makes sense to apply this to an apostasy involving a multitude and a remnant in the New Covenant time.

Then there is I Corinthians 10: 11. In I Corinthians 10 Paul is writing about those following Moses drinking of Christ who he calls that spiritual rock, and Paul says these things were our examples. Are we to make these things our examples only concerning the 40 years of the wilderness trek by those following Moses? Or can Old Testament events and prophecies be applied to New Testament times in a broader way, so long as doing so does not violate New Testament doctrines?

But even without I Corinthians 10: 11, since Ezekiel 5: 1-12 gives us general principles about multitudes who it can be seen are in error, not obeying God, and the remnant, we can apply what is said there to New Covenant apostasy of the multitude, and to whom might that apostasy happen? To the Church. It may be that the whole object here is a defense of the Church from any prophecy about its apostasy.

"With the antichrist present as you say. Do you think he could be behind your curiosity?" This might be an indication of where this is all coming from? Who believes in a one man anti-Christ? What Church theology is most likely to insist on a one man anti-Christ, and in II Thessalonians 2: 3-7. The apparent metaphor Paul uses in II Thessalonians 2: 4, about the Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God does not necessarily say the man of sin is the anti-Christ, or the spirit of anti-Christ. As far as this Church theology is concerned - that is, Christian Zionism - there is no metaphor in II Thessalonians 2: 4 because the temple is literally a rebuilt temple of God in Jerusalem. Acts 7: 48, I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19, saying God does not reside in temples built by human hands and now the temple of God is the believer himself is all ignored in making II Thessalonians 2: 4 literal.

There is no one man anti-Christ in scripture. In I John 4: 3 it says "...και τουτο εστιν το του αντιχριστου ο ακηκοατε οτι ερχεται και νυν εν τω κοσμω εστιν ηδη." In English I John 4: 3 says according to the George Ricker Berry Greek-English Interlinear "and this is of the ant-Christ of which ye have heard that it comes and now is in the world it is already."

William Tyndale adds the English word Spirit between the Greek words το του. "And every spirit which confesseth not ye Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist of whom ye have heard how that he should come: and even now already is he in the world." The King James follows Tyndale and adds the word Spirit, to say that the spirit of antichrist will come.

See: http://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_john/4-3.htm

This site translates ἔρχεται, third person singular, as "that it is coming." The anti-Christ in I John 4: 3 is said to be an "it," not a "he."

North, this feature, to me, ties the subject more tightly to the first century because John says the place is crawling with them. It is the spirit that says that Jesus (of Nazarath) was not the Christ. Judaizers would not do that because it would undermine so much, and likewise zealots, and it would splinter the effort to take on Rome.

And yet in Dan 8, 9, Mt 24, I Th 2, there is an individual and he is sin incarnate and he ruins Israel and is crushed.