This is a continuation of my consideration whether my assumption that Jesus called Judas Iscariot ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the one destined for destruction) is like Jesus’ disciples’ discussion about having no bread¹ after He said: “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod!”²

In another essay I began to look at John’s description of antichrist and many antichrists because Meyer’s NT Commentary stated that many of the Church Fathers had understood Paul’s description of the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, as the Antichrist.

The last insight into antichrist I considered in another essay I titled “the antichrist…denies the Father and the Son.” John penned a contrast to this title in the final verse I quoted under that heading: The person who confesses (ὁ ὁμολογῶν) the Son has the Father also.³ His explanation of this point is my final insight:

4. …the spirit of the antichrist…refuses to confess Jesus

John wrote (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 1:7 NET):

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that refuses to confess Jesus, that spirit is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist (ἀντιχρίστου), which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world [Table].

For many deceivers have gone out⁴ into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.⁵ Though I might otherwise have focused on test (δοκιμάζετε, a form of δοκιμάζω) the spirits, this study has focused my attention on the many antichrists who went out from us.

This is, admittedly, the first time I’ve made any strong connection between ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ (many antichrists) and πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται (many false prophets). The connection is made primarily by John’s descriptions of antichrist and many antichrists, but also through the verbs ἐξῆλθαν (They went out) and ἐξεληλύθασιν (have gone out), forms of ἐξέρχομαι. I hadn’t thought of these many false prophets as those who went out from us before. Jesus warned, Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.⁶

Up until this moment my religious mind had limited my understanding of false prophets to “religious” things, to those who make false predictions about Jesus’ return or some other false teaching of Scripture. Combined with the many antichrists who went out from us, Jesus’ warning that whoever does not gather with me scatters (σκορπίζει, a form of σκορπίζω) and my initial insights into false wonders, however, I’m willing to modify that understanding.

Charles Darwin doesn’t appear to be one who went out from the visible church literally. “Darwin and his family had a lifetime involvement with the Church of England, and various dissenting establishments…His local activities in the village of Down paint a fascinating picture of a man who, despite his own divergent beliefs and uncertainties, was determined to support the church as a social institution.”⁷ This was partly explained by the existence of a state church in England: “A nominal adherence to the Anglican Church’s teachings was still essential for admittance to many of the elite cultural and political institutions of England. It was required to enter Oxford and Cambridge, for example, and an Oxbridge degree was often crucial, in turn, in securing a position in the most prestigious professions. As a young man, Charles went up to Cambridge in 1828 with the aim of completing the necessary studies to be a clergyman.”⁸

On the other hand, it is apparent that Aleister Crowley went out from the Plymouth Brethren. An entry in Wikipedia describing “The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography” states: “In reference to his early years of being raised by fundamentalist Christians, Crowley explains how he became a rebel against conventional religion and how his behaviour and conflicts with authority figures contributed to his reputation as a dark magician. Whilst Crowley does not deny dabbling with demonic forces, his memoirs reveal that his aim was the progress and spiritual freedom of humanity.”⁹

E.O. Wilson, the controversial¹⁰ “father of sociobiology,” according to an entry¹¹ in Wikipedia online:

…described his position as “provisional deism”^[71] and explicitly denied the label of “atheist”, preferring “agnostic”.^[72] He explained his faith as a trajectory away from traditional beliefs: “I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic or atheistic, just Baptist & Christian no more.”^[45] Wilson argued that belief in God and the rituals of religion are products of evolution.^[73] He argued that they should not be rejected or dismissed, but further investigated by science to better understand their significance to human nature. In his book The Creation, Wilson wrote that scientists ought to “offer the hand of friendship” to religious leaders and build an alliance with them, stating that “Science and religion are two of the most potent forces on Earth and they should come together to save the creation.”^[74]

…In a New Scientist interview published on January 21, 2015, however, Wilson said that “Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress'”, and “So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.”^[76]

An entry titled “Sociobiology” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online states:

Human behavioral ecology (HBE), or human evolutionary ecology, is the current evolutionary social science most closely related to Wilson’s sociobiological project; it is the project that is sometimes still referred to as “sociobiology” by some philosophers of science (Griffiths, 2008; Sterelny and Griffiths, 1999)…

To understand the purposes of the HBE project, let’s consider one of its classic examples: Kaplan and Hill’s (1992) work on prey choice strategies amongst the Ache foragers of Paraguay. Just as in non-human behavioral ecology, behavioral strategies in HBE are usually described as complex behavioral dispositions. Behavioral dispositions involve behavioral responses to local stimuli; behavioral strategies then involve producing a set of different responses to a set of different stimuli (i.e. the response conditions of the strategy). According to Kaplan and Hill, the Ache prey choice strategy involves choosing a variety of different potential prey items from the environment; whether or not a prey item is taken depends on a number of circumstances acting as the response conditions: for example, the presence of prey with certain specific features, such as the caloric return of the prey given the time necessary to process it (known as the profitability); the rate at which that prey occurs in the environment; whether or not the prey is encountered on their search; and the search time available on a foraging trip…

HBEs explicitly accept that social learning of general purpose reasoning may be responsible for human behavioral strategies such as the Ache’s.

This was followed immediately by a Human Behavioral Ecology “statement of faith”:

However, this is ultimately irrelevant; one way or another, natural selection has, in effect, “seen to it” that humans behave in ways that tend to maximize their reproductive success.

The Lord used statements like this in E.O. Wilson’s comments on Sociobiology to help wean me from any consideration of evolution as a plausible alternative to his creation of life. As for “means” (e.g., God used evolution to create life as we see it now), it’s not what the Scripture says. Perhaps, the benefit I’ve derived from considering each of these men as I followed Jesus through the Scriptures has made me slow (or even loathe) to recognize them as false prophets and antichrists. And that brings me at last to Friedrich Nietzsche.

According to an entry in Wikipedia online, Friedrich Nietzsche was the son of “a Lutheran pastor^[15]…Academic records from one of the schools attended by Nietzsche noted that he excelled in Christian theology.”^[17] The Lord used Nietzsche’s¹² writings to help me understand my own unbelief. I wrote of Nietzsche in another essay:

When I consider the justice of God’s mercy in and through Christ I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche. Jesus said, Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.^[30] The soul cannot be killed with weaponry. But Friedrich Nietzsche came about as close to being a soul killer as I can imagine a human being becoming. Who can calculate his devastating impact on the souls of academics and the intelligentsia? But if I imagine him in torment in hell for all eternity, cursing his nonexistent god, I realize that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,^[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.

This particular blog entry posted: May 25, 2013. The confirmation of this “no greater destruction” insight posted: December 14, 2022. It was the first time I really grappled with the differences between the mind of Christ and my religious mind vis-a-vis John 12:31, 32 (NET).

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

Before that study I could only see these as three independent projects on a to-do list. Afterward, I began to see the first two accomplished in the promise of the third. Present day scientists and philosophers would call that confirmation bias. Possibly so, but it’s the kind of confirmation bias that helps to keep me following Jesus through the Scripture.

Frankly, I would much rather tell you that I learned about the judgment of this world¹³ from Jesus’ words, explained in his promise, And I…will draw all people to myself,¹⁴ and then declared “that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,^[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.” The opposite, that I had this insight before I heard Jesus’ words (which I had read many times before), makes me feel stupid and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!¹⁵ And the prophet here was none other than the Lord Himself!

Granted, some of my stupidity and slowness of heart to believe is attributable to the fact that what I am believing now is contrary to my religion and even to my own religious mind. This confirmation bias is one of many that helps me to gain the courage to stand up to my religion and my own religious mind and say: “No, I would rather be wrong trusting Jesus’ words when I stand before Him in judgment, than right trusting yours.”

Having said that, I think it’s important to point out that John limited the terms antichrist, false prophets and deceivers (πλάνοι, a form of πλάνος) to those who do not confess Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh,¹⁶ to people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.¹⁷ These are not terms John threw out at brothers and sisters who are slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. The resurrected Jesus described us as, You foolish people (ὦ ἀνόητοι).¹⁸ The Greek word ἀνόητοι is a plural form of the adjective ἀνόητος: “uneducated, low intelligence, unintelligent, lacking understanding; unwise, not thought on, unheard of; foolish, senseless.”

I’ll continue with this in another essay. A table comparing 2 John 1:7 in the NET and KJV follows.